On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:25 +0100, David Greaves wrote:

Kasper Sandberg wrote:

quoted

Im not treating it as a backup, what i want, is to make sure that if 1
disk dies, the data is still intact and ill hopefully be able to run
with 1 disk till the newly ordered one arrives

Probably one of the main design objectives behind RAID/md

Exactly, but once people start saying: "Look how many problems people
post to the thread on
a weekly basis where people lose their data when md rebuilds go bad with
non-shared disks" i begin to worry..

quoted

So my question remains.. Is md raid1 not suited for this need? would it
be safer to run in non-raid1 mode and daily(maybe hourly) rsync
everything over to the second disk?

md is 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back...
rsync is 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back...
your backups are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back...
your hard drives are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back...
your CPU and RAM are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back...
your CPU and PSU fans are 100% guaranteed perfect or your money back...

Clearly if you want to panic over reliability you have lots of choices :)

I do not wish to panic, i merely wished to know if linux MD is believed
to work in most cases, or believed to do all sorts of weird stuff when
resyncing :)

David
PS, FWIW md has saved my data* countless times over the past 'n' years in
exactly the scenario you describe.

It has also been useful to people i know, i just wished to be sure :)
and as Keld Jørn Simonsen and Helge Hafting's comments seems to confirm,
linux md IS nice and stable :)

and as said, what im looking for isnt an in-box backup solution, merely
safety in case one disk burns :)

*(or more accurately has saved me from having to restore my data)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html