|
|
Posted by Spex on 02/05/07 08:11
P.C. Ford wrote:
> On 04 Feb 2007 07:22:51 GMT, sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com
> wrote:
>
>> P.C. Ford <meoh@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> : A screw-up like this is not caused by one thing...it usually takes a
>> : series of screw-ups. That is certainly the case here. The first was
>> : choosing RAID 0.
>>
>> RAID-0 sacrifices reliability for speed... it's usually used for things
>> like real time video capture, where speed is essential but the data would
>> be moved somewhere else for storage. Using RAID-0 for data storage with
>> no backup seems an almost comical strategy.
>
> Thanks I needed that....why do people need to come along to point out
> what is patently obvious? Misanthropy? Sadism?
>
> When I set up the machine, I wanted to do a 0 + 1. The controller
> required SATA to do this. My old computer was slow; I went with the
> RAID 0. I shouldn't have. Two drives with back-ups would have been
> better. I screwed up.
>
> There, does that make you feel better?
>
>
I shouldn't take it to heart. I bet many people never think it'll
happen to them. There is absolutely one certainty where HDs and NLEs
meet and that is a drive failure sooner or later. Raid 5 with nested
raid 0 drives is the absolute best for NLE work but costs.
I always look on a drive failure as a learning opportunity. I've lost
important stuff in the past but nothing I couldn't live without.
Without those previous drive failures I wouldn't be protecting my really
important work as well as I am now. I can share your pain as I've been
there.
I have found using the more expensive Enterprise level SATA drives to
pay off. They have a greater MTBF rating and designed for 24/7 duty
cycles. You may find the same.
It depends how the drive has failed but there is a good chance you can
get your info back. The drive recovery people normally cost a fortune
but if the information is priceless then it is value for money.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|