XPost: aus.computers   
   From: me@bugger.off.com.au   
      
   On 28/12/2025 10:07 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 09:50:50 +1000, keithr0 wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 25/12/2025 4:57 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> RAID is about high availability, not about backup.   
   >>   
   >> RAID is about failure resilience, if you have a single drive a   
   >> failure loses everything.   
   >   
   > With JBOD, you only lose what was on that drive.   
   >   
   > With RAID-0, you do indeed lose everything.   
   >   
   > The point with (nonzero) RAID is to keep going while you restore from   
   > backup. It’s not about replacing the need for backup.   
      
   Not exactly, with any useful sort of RAID implementation, you can hot   
   replace the bad drive, without the need to restore from backup. All the   
   data remains available throughout.   
      
   I spent 20 years working on large storage systems, beginning with boxes   
   of 128 5 1/4" 9gig SCSI drives, going on with larger and larger drives   
   dropping to 3 1/2" SCSI then Ultra SCSI, fibre channel and finally SOS   
   (SCSI Over Serial) drives. The largest box that I encountered had 1700   
   400gig drives. Originally all drives were RAID 1, then RAID 5, and later   
   to RAID 6. The customers were mostly large mainframe sites, both IBM,   
   and *nix who had to have their data available 24/365 no ifs no buts.   
   After all, you aren't going to be well pleased if you can't get your   
   money from an ATM because the bank is having to restore it's database   
   from a backup due to a drive failure.   
      
   Backups were made, usually on large ATA drives, but more for recovery   
   from software or system errors rather than hardware failures   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)