You’re using redundancy and backup synonymously, but they’re not. Raid 1+ absolutely provides redundancy, you are 100% wrong in saying that it doesn’t, because it provides a failover system that prevents operational interruption if a drive fails.
Comment on [Help] Improving HDD storage setup for personal server
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 4 weeks ago
RAID isn’t data redundancy, it’s an array of drives combined to form a single logical storage pool. It solves the problem of needing a single storage pool latter than the available drives. As such, it’s very sensitive to loss of a single drive.
At your storage size requirements (2 TB), RAID is unnecessary today.
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
RAID5 and RAID6 can lose 1 and 2 drives respectively without data loss.
Courantdair@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
RAID0 has no redundancy, all other levels have (either mirroring or with parity)
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 4 weeks ago
That’s not data redundancy - there’s still only one copy of your data.
Those are mitigations against loss of data due to loss of parity.
There’s still only ONE copy of your data.
Courantdair@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
I think you’re confusing backup and redundancy. While I totally agree RAID1+ should not be considered backup, it absolutely is redundancy, as the same data is present on at least two disks (either on the form of the exact same data or something that can be used to rebuild the missing data).
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
You should look up what the R in raid stands for.
talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
RAID (except RAID0) is data redundancy, it just isn’t backup (ie. it doesn’t help if you accidentally delete stuff, or if some bug corrupts it, or if you drop the computer while moving it).
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 4 weeks ago
Fine.
Pull 1 drive and see how redundant your data is while it’s resilvering.
RAID is NOT data redundancy.
snooggums@piefed.world 4 weeks ago
RAID0 has no redundancy, but all of the other RAID options do have redundancy.
talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
By that reasoning, backup isn’t redundancy because you’ll lose your data if the backup gets corrupted while restoring.
That said, there’s nothing wrong in redefining “redundant” to mean “having two or more duplicates”… you should however tell people if you do, to avoid misleading people that assume the dictionary definition.