Am I wrong, raid loophole

[dsb1829]

So I have been studying up on RAID. I had intended to run a RAID1 for my 250gb storage volumes. I read through a lot of threads on several forums. While RAID1 seems like a great gig. So now the hard drives have your data mirrored and safe 2x over. Of course if your controller goes down you are cooked. The system still has a single point of failure. How do you win? Do you need to buy 2 controllers and keep one locked away just in case?

I am now thinking that 2 drives that are software sync'd daily would actually be more secure since either drive could be plugged into another system and the data recovered.

What am I missing here???

 

[notherdude]

People who are serious enough about up time and data protection to go RAID 1 will simply get another controller if it comes to that. Much more chance a single drive will go down, in which case a mission critical computer keeps on running - thus both protecting the data and avoiding down time. If the MOBO or controller does go down then yes, they probably have an identical backup they can slide in with little or no configurating.

But simply backing up a drive is plenty good for everyday data protection alone. But keep in mind that for mission critical systems even the data lost between backups might be devastating.

I image my drive often. I really liked the beta of WHS I used for this for a time. Windows Home Server has a very intelligent means of doing this as often as you like, every day if you want, for every PC in your house (up to 10). It saves space by avoiding any redundant copies of the same files. So if you have a bunch of XP machines it only makes one copy of the actual OS files.