![]() I've now broken the Mirror (as they say) on my Windows Server and configured FFS to the best of my current comprehension ability. Thanks all for your helpful guidance and input. Thanks for your insights, I look forward to resolving these issues, potentially with FFS. Battery backup in this instance is a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. So, until those issues can be successfully addressed, the RAID 1 Resync is an unwelcome feature. ![]() Suspected chief culprit is overheating (hopefully now eliminated) and some driver or services foibles (not so easy to track down and fix). What am I losing by using this approach instead of RAID 0 (which has the inconvenient feature of requiring Resync after system failure)? Note that the system shutdown/failure problems are mostly deeply buried Windows Server issues that I'm working to resolve. So the volume would be used exclusively for data (photos, music, video) files, with an additional, external backup snapshot taken periodically (probably weekly or monthly) - is that feasible and secure enough? My plan would be for the 2nd 4TB HDD to act as a 'carbon copy' of 4TB HDD #1. ![]() This allows you to revert to one or more of the earlier versions of any given file that is within the scope of your sync.įFS wouldn't necessarily avoid downtime since it won't be an exact disk clone If you (accidentally) modify or delete a file in your source, (after running a mirror sync) your mirror will comprise those same changes.įFS offers the opportunity to go further than that, e.g. Running a mirror sync in FFS requires defining and saving a proper sync configuration, and then performing that sync frequently or incidentally manually or automatically, e.g. Those locations may be on the same disk, on different disks, on different physical devices or even different locations (buildings, towns, countries).ĭepending on your reasons for creating and maintaining your mirror, you would select one of the above. You can use FFS to create a mirror of a first location to a second location. There is no clear or direct link between using RAID (1) and the using FFS for synchronization purposes. Once properly configured, maintaining the mirror (sync, if you like) between the two disks is fully automatic, consumes very little overhead and requires no user intervention whatsoever.īut obviously, if the system that comprises those two disks fatally fails, the data from both those disk may no longer be accessible. If one of those disks fails, all the data is still available from the other disk. In RAID 0, if a single disk fails, you loose all your data. ![]() The data is equally divided between the two disk. First of all: in your tile you mention a RAID 0 configuration, later you mention "currently setup as a Mirror".Īlthough RAID stand for Redundant Array of Independent disks, two disks in a RAID 0 configuration are not redundant and are not a mirror. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |