>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of 
>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes. 
> 
> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical 
> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.

Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?

My dad is the only person I know who's tried it, and he has lost far 
more data due to RAID glitches than to any physical hardware failure!


to it in a RAID-1 configuration. Every 6 hours or so, the RAID 
controller would "fail" one of the drives and stop using it. Then you'd 
have to tell it to rebuilt the array (BE CAREFUL TO SELECT THE RIGHT 
SOURCE DRIVE!) and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then 
it would work for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.

In summary, it was hopeless and an utter waste of time.

Now all the *servers* here at work have RAID on them, but they have 
expensive high-end UltraSCSI 360 RAID controllers with the 
battery-backed RAM and so on and so forth. Nobody is rich enough to put 
those in a desktop machine.

>> But I did it back when I only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling 
>> the OS that much easier without losing work. (If anything on my PC 
>> could be considered "work".)
> 
> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the 
> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).

Backup onto *what*?

I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large enough 
to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message