[ubuntu-uk] Software verses Hardware raid (wasRE:Anyone evertried kolab on feisty)

Daniel Lamb daniel.lamb at dlcomputing.co.uk
Thu Sep 27 22:36:14 BST 2007

Backup strategy is to backup to tape once a week and back up another raided
hard drive external of the main machine every night(swapped once a week ie 2
boxes and 1 taken offsite every week, which is for the same reasons as you
said, even though raid is brilliant and pretty full proof all it takes is a
fire, or hardware fault to wipe it out, as was said before if the raid card
was replaced by another which can not detect the raid in full all I would
then need to do is rebuild the server and replace the data to the place it
was before.


-----Original Message-----
From: ubuntu-uk-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
[mailto:ubuntu-uk-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Ian Pascoe
Sent: 27 September 2007 21:21
To: British Ubuntu Talk
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Software verses Hardware raid (wasRE:Anyone
evertried kolab on feisty)

Hi Alan / Daniel

An interesting topic and one that has recently been done to death on the
Beowulf mailling lists under the "Big Storage" title (sorry, haven't sused
out their archive system yet).  Now these guys are looking at HPC  and HA
computing going up from 4 to 1000+nodes with PB size storage levels.

The conclusion they came up with was that for 99.9% of scenarios hardware
RAID beat software RAID hands down - this was not hearsay but through

I'm interested in why Daniel chose RAID in a single box as that to my mind
gives you an instant single point of failure - I'm always glad to be proved

What will be your backup strategy or are you going to be totally reliant on
RAID for that?


-----Original Message-----
From: ubuntu-uk-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
[mailto:ubuntu-uk-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com]On Behalf Of Alan Pope
Sent: 27 September 2007 16:06
To: British Ubuntu Talk
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Software verses Hardware raid (was RE:Anyone
evertried kolab on feisty)

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 15:58 +0100, Daniel Lamb wrote:
> Personally I feel raids only real use is data protection, as hard drives
> sometimes very unreliable anyway how is really worried about speed? This
> in a server which means its not reading or writing at a very fast speed
> anyway.

Your server might not, but many do. A friend of mine runs a server and
IO is the single biggest bottleneck on the box. He has 4 physical disks
with the data mirrored _and_ striped over them. So he has performance
and resilience.

Of course if the server is only an office server with some documents and
email then it's less of an issue perhaps. It's all about the usage.


ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com

More information about the ubuntu-uk mailing list