Raid vs rsync -

[Bob Goodwin]

On 03/09/15 14:58, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Bob Goodwin <bobgoodwin at wildblue.net> wrote:
>> I had a mainboard fail in a box I use as a server, I moved the hard drive
>> into old computer and carried on from there. Now I've replaced the board and
>> intended to set it up using Raid to mirror two drives. However I have been
>> wondering if it wouldn't work just as well to periodically rsync the drive
>> in use with a second drive?
>>
>> That seems a more direct approach and I could easily check to make certain
>> that the second drive was a usable copy, insurance against loss of data.
>>
>> Am I going wrong somewhere in my thinking?
> Nope, definitely setup the rsync as backup before worrying about raid1
> for improved uptime. Once the rsync is in place, should you wish to
> ensure improved uptime for either your production system or the backup
> itself, then consider raid1 in addition.
>
> Rsync gives you incremental backup flexibility, and at least the
> possibility of recovering not yet overwritten files. A common form of
> data loss is user induced, e.g. accidentally deleting a file. With
> raid1, that change happens immediately. With rsync, there's a delay.
> So you actually have a real backup with rsync between two independent
> file systems; whereas raid1 is really not backup, it's design goal is
> improving uptime so you can keep working despite a device failure.
> Another option is using rsync checksum verification, which is a ton
> slower, but absolutely ensures source and destination are the same
> independent of drives' ECC.
>


I'm primarily interested in the convenience of having my data on a 
server and preventing it's loss. I don't require extreme performance, 
etc. Reassured by your comments I will give this a try then.

Thank you,

Bob

-- 
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box10  Fedora-21/64bit Linux/XFCE