republican-creole
site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies

itguy05

join:2005-06-17

reply to glinc

Re: Fail

said by glinc:

exactly, they should have all hdd's set up with raid-1
I've seen a RAID 1 controller puke and take both drives out. Or even worse, corruption on 1 drive immediately gets replicated to the other.

And, yes, I've seen even RAID 5 arrays go tits-up.

Of course people need to realize that even with tape backups, a full system restore of lots and lots of TB pretty much never happens. Where I work we have many, many (90 maybe) TB of data. It has been calculated that a full database restore from tape would take almost a month. I forget if that takes into account the validation work or not. Needless to say we have a redundant system somewhere else.

However, I wonder where it was said it was a SAN - the articles I've saw said "server"....

Working in IT for as long as I have, I've seen it all. Most likely what happened this time was there was:

1) No $$ for that spare SAN.
2) The risk was supposed to be so low as to not cause an issue.

My bet is on #2 - I've seen way too much of those types of things cause issues. Including work on 1/2 of a fully redundant SAN take the whole thing down where the vendor is still scratching their heads years later.

bjbrock

join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK

Properly configured RAID1 uses 2 controllers.



tmh

@verizon.net

reply to itguy05

said by itguy05:

And, yes, I've seen even RAID 5 arrays go tits-up.
We had a 16 bay Promise VTrak die after a power surge (yes, it was on a UPS). All but one drive went south, so even RAID 5 was useless.

We did have backups fortunately.

Friday, 01-Jun 14:00:28 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics