Diranged wrote:
I agree though ... a true 100% backup is a bit difficult when you have 1+TB of data. Thats why I opt for the more reasonable RAID solution where I can loose 1-2 disks (in this particular setup, 1 disk... but 2 if I choose to re-config the RAID) and still have all of my data. Its a much more likely scenario.
Yeah, but the problem with the RAID levels above 0 is that you sacrifice total capacity for parity. This is a problem for me because I've got over 500 titles in my DVD collection now, so I'm looking at a minimum of 1TB.
However, that leaves me with no room for growth, and I typically add 4-5 DVDs per month. I'd prefer to have 2TB usable capacity to start, but that means if I want parity I need a raw total capacity of 4TB at RAID1 or 3TB at RAID5 (or 4TB for RAID6, but with this small number of disks double fault tolerance is just wasteful).
RAID5 (and 6) storage efficiency goes up as the number of spindles in the chassis increases (16 spindles at RAID1 or RAID0+1/1+0 would be, well, kinda dumb), but so does the cost. For example, a two-disk desktop 1TB RAID0/1 chassis from LaCie can be had for $440, but a desktop 4-disk 1TB RAID5 hits you for $1370. I can buy 3TB worth of the RAID0/1 boxes for that much.
So while RAID fault tolerance is a good idea, it comes at a cost--and it's still enough of a cost to push it out of most peoples' hands.
-- C