Bob Willard wrote:

>
> With RAID-1 (mirroring) you still should do regular backups. RAID-1
> only protects against failure of a HD, and supplies no protection
> against failures of any other piece of hardware, or glitches due to
> software or environment or fumble-fingers. IMHO, since the HD is one
> of the most reliable pieces of a PC, RAID-1 has very little value
> for a home.

Hmm, if I look at all the hardware failures I've in the last 15 or so
years, hard disks are probably the least reliable part of my desktops. I
can't recall a CPU, memory, graphics card or motherboard failure in that
time, maybe I'm just lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.)
--
Nik Simpson

nik Simpson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Bob Willard wrote

>> With RAID-1 (mirroring) you still should do regular backups. RAID-1
>> only protects against failure of a HD, and supplies no protection against failures of any other piece of hardware, or
>> glitches due to software or environment or fumble-fingers. IMHO, since the HD is one of the most reliable pieces of
>> a PC, RAID-1 has very little value for a home.

> Hmm, if I look at all the hardware failures I've in the last 15 or so years, hard disks are probably the least
> reliable part of my desktops. I can't recall a CPU, memory, graphics card or motherboard failure in that time, maybe
> I'm just lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.)

Sure, but plenty get that with hard drives too.

Lon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> nik Simpson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>> Bob Willard wrote

>>>> With RAID-1 (mirroring) you still should do regular backups. RAID-1 only protects against failure of a HD, and
>>>> supplies no protection
>>>> against failures of any other piece of hardware, or glitches due
>>>> to software or environment or fumble-fingers. IMHO, since the HD
>>>> is one of the most reliable pieces of a PC, RAID-1 has very
>>>> little value for a home.

>>> Hmm, if I look at all the hardware failures I've in the last 15 or
>>> so years, hard disks are probably the least reliable part of my
>>> desktops. I can't recall a CPU, memory, graphics card or
>>> motherboard failure in that time, maybe I'm just lucky (or unlucky
>>> depending on how you look at it.)

>> Sure, but plenty get that with hard drives too.

> With an oddball hiccup in the measured reliability of all components
> in systems, working for multiple vendors, I gotta go with hard drives.
> This is SMD, IDE, EIDE, SCSI, FC, SATA.

I include MFM, RLL, EDSI etc etc etc too.

> Generally anything with moving parts will be less reliable.

Its much more complicated than that.

> Other highlights are parts where the user can get at them, plug them into something stupid, plug something stupid into
> them, or pour various liquids on them.

And stuff that has a rather hard life like mouse cords etc.

> Even way back when memory errors occurred, measured over an entire
> install base, the memory was not that much different in reliability than the chips.

Yes, but it aint just chips that matter, most obviously with the problem with electros.

> A few issues with UV EPROMS, but those are in the antique shop anyway.

Doesnt alter that fact that plenty havent had a hard drive failure and have had other stuff fail.

> Doesnt alter that fact that plenty havent had a hard drive failure and have
had
>other stuff fail.

Fans are also unreliable.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.storagecraft.com

Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:

>>Doesnt alter that fact that plenty havent had a hard drive failure and have
>
> had
>
>>other stuff fail.
>
>
> Fans are also unreliable.
>

I think the OP would be better off putting the raid on a server and
configuring the desktop as just that -- a desktop.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.