This is exactly why I don't run a RAID setup even though my motherboard
supports it. It's great for disk hardware failures but is totally
vulnerable to software memory corruption which, IMHO, is a far more
likely failure.
I have a back up copy of my entire hard drive. It is backed up
incrementally whenever I think I've accumulated more change than I'd be
comfortable in losing and when I'm reasonably assured that the system
seems to be behaving itself.
Chuck Norcutt
Piers Hemy wrote:
> Sadly, a firend was persuaded by his son-in-law to do just that, installing
> a duplicate hard drive with mirroring software to provide the backup.
> Somehow the file allocation table on the master drive was corrupted - and
> the mirroring software did precisely what it said on the tin, duplicating
> the error on what had been the backup.
>
> Both disk are with recovery specialists as I type, trying to reconstitute
> the FAT for either disk to recover tens of GB of image data. The data are
> all, without exception, present and uncorrupted on the disk. It's just not
> obvius what sequence they should be in...
>
> But I do agree about the principle - I have a 120GB external USB disk with
> Iomega Auto Backup software running daily on my user data, and occasional
> Norton Ghost backups of the entire C: drive.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|