On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:31:08AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 09:32:13PM +0000, ghe2001 wrote: > >Two for sure and put them in a RAID1 -- formatted ext4. And watch that > >mdstat. > > > >And a third or fourth to see if you can get ZFS going. > > For playing around with tech, sure: for part of a mundane, reliable > backup strategy for the OP, and as an external, hot-pluggable drive, > I disagree, RAID is not a good idea for this use-case. Absolutely. It's like jumping on your semi-trailer to go grocery-shopping. What's a RAID good for? It's to ensure service continuity in the case of a disk failure. Perfect for a server which has to be running 24/7 with as little downtime as possible. Is backup a case for that? No. For backup, you (a) check the fs on your backup media (b) mount that file system (c) run the backup (d) unmount When you discover your media is corrupt/broken, yon restart with a new medium. If you need any redundancy, you keep several backups in parallel (which you keep physically separate, so your house burning down doesn't catch all of them at once). Adjust accordingly for over-the-net backups. Other variations possible. No variation of it makes any kind of RAID look attractive. Now if you are setting a backup server for hundreds of clients, that's another story. I'd consider RAID for that (not RAID1, though). If you want to play with toys, by all means, do it. That's what we're here for. Backup doesn't seem the right playground for this toy. Cheers - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature