Low Cost Raid 5 system

[valdier]

Hey everyone, I'm building a very simple database/desktop app system that is used at conventions and events several times a year. Currently the people using it can't connect to the internet at most locations and don't do backups.

I am looking at building/buying a really low cost system with a Raid5 for generic disk security.

Does anyone know of a prebuilt for under $800?

The system runs a simple .Net front end client and an instance of MySQL with no more than 2-3 people running queries at a time. Performance is not a major issue on this and no GPU is needed. Ideas?

 

[TyrOd]

Hey everyone, I'm building a very simple database/desktop app system that is used at conventions and events several times a year. Currently the people using it can't connect to the internet at most locations and don't do backups.

I am looking at building/buying a really low cost system with a Raid5 for generic disk security.

Does anyone know of a prebuilt for under $800?

The system runs a simple .Net front end client and an instance of MySQL with no more than 2-3 people running queries at a time. Performance is not a major issue on this and no GPU is needed. Ideas?

I'm not sure what you actually want here.

Your clients at these conventions don't do backup...yet you want a RAID5 system, which isn't the same as backup...and "disk security" is unrelated to either of these things.

You also didn't indicate how much storage space you need total...so

 

[valdier]

I'm not sure what you actually want here.

Your clients at these conventions don't do backup...yet you want a RAID5 system, which isn't the same as backup...and "disk security" is unrelated to either of these things.

You also didn't indicate how much storage space you need total...so

Storage space doesn't matter, 100gig drives would be fine.

Raid 5 isn't a backup, its data security at the disk level. I decided to just build my own system since it will be faster and easier. Mini ITX just going raid 1 was the final solution. If they delete or corrupt the data, not my problem, but I have done the due diligence to offer disk security (in that there are redundant disk systems to protect against single failure points).

 

[TyrOd]

I'm not sure what you actually want here.

Your clients at these conventions don't do backup...yet you want a RAID5 system, which isn't the same as backup...and "disk security" is unrelated to either of these things.

You also didn't indicate how much storage space you need total...so

Storage space doesn't matter, 100gig drives would be fine.

Raid 5 isn't a backup, its data security at the disk level. I decided to just build my own system since it will be faster and easier. Mini ITX just going raid 1 was the final solution. If they delete or corrupt the data, not my problem, but I have done the due diligence to offer disk security (in that there are redundant disk systems to protect against single failure points).

Absolutely wrong. You haven't provided ANY protection against single points of failure because the RAID controller, motherboard, etc... is now the single point of failure. RAID CANNOT ACCOMPLISH an elimination of single point of failure. ONLY backup with at minimum using the 3-2-1 strategy can.

If there is no backup, there is no data protection PERIOD.

 

[valdier]

[
Absolutely wrong. You haven't provided ANY protection against single points of failure because the RAID controller, motherboard, etc... is now the single point of failure. RAID CANNOT ACCOMPLISH an elimination of single point of failure. ONLY backup with at minimum using the 3-2-1 strategy can.

If there is no backup, there is no data protection PERIOD.

And that is certainly a belief. It will be a software raid, which, without the corruption of the entire raid, is perfectly safe. Additionally, even with corruption of a software raid, it is often possible to still recover data.

That said, I really don't care about the opinion of what they *should* be doing. It is completely off topic from the question, despite your use of caps. I have already stated they will *not* be doing backups and so anything I can do to assist in protecting data helps. Which a Raid *does* despite backup religion.

Thank you though.

 

[TyrOd]

[
Absolutely wrong. You haven't provided ANY protection against single points of failure because the RAID controller, motherboard, etc... is now the single point of failure. RAID CANNOT ACCOMPLISH an elimination of single point of failure. ONLY backup with at minimum using the 3-2-1 strategy can.

If there is no backup, there is no data protection PERIOD.

And that is certainly a belief. It will be a software raid, which, without the corruption of the entire raid, is perfectly safe. Additionally, even with corruption of a software raid, it is often possible to still recover data.

That said, I really don't care about the opinion of what they *should* be doing. It is completely off topic from the question, despite your use of caps. I have already stated they will *not* be doing backups and so anything I can do to assist in protecting data helps. Which a Raid *does* despite backup religion.

Thank you though.

Religion? The 3-2-1 principal for backup is the industry standard for data protection and more importantly this is exactly what any data recovery professional will tell your boss/management when asked what went wrong.
If you have to go to a third party to recover the data, most cases result in firing or demotion.
I work for a professional data recovery lab and the most common contributing factor in consultation with businesses that lose RAID data is believing they don't need a backup because they have RAID.

So again...
The chance of losing data in a RAID1(yes even software RAID) configuration due to data corruption, power surges, file system corruption from a virus is actually HIGHER than single drive failure rates.
RAID only accomplishes data availability, it can do nothing whatsoever to protect against single point of failure data loss by itself.

Best case scenario is you can recover the data on your own when there is eventual data loss, worst case your clients seek a second opinion and you get fired.

 

[valdier]

[
Religion? The 3-2-1 principal for backup is the industry standard for data protection and more importantly this is exactly what any data recovery professional will tell your boss/management when asked what went wrong.
If you have to go to a third party to recover the data, most cases result in firing or demotion.
I work for a professional data recovery lab and the most common contributing factor in consultation with businesses that lose RAID data is believing they don't need a backup because they have RAID.

So again...
The chance of losing data in a RAID1(yes even software RAID) configuration due to data corruption, power surges, file system corruption from a virus is actually HIGHER than single drive failure rates.
RAID only accomplishes data availability, it can do nothing whatsoever to protect against single point of failure data loss by itself.

Best case scenario is you can recover the data on your own when there is eventual data loss, worst case your clients seek a second opinion and you get fired.

Ok, cool story bro. Next time, *read* the question.

 

[McHenryB]

I think there's a confusion here between data security and data availability. As already stated, RAID does little, if anything to ensure data security and can decrease it. Its advantage, and why it is used in enterprises that need to run 24/7 services - along with a good backup policy - is that it provides enhanced availability.

The OP asked about data security, not availability, so I think it is correct to say that RAID is not the appropriate solution. Two disks with an automated backup solution will provide better data protection than RAID. Not as good as a proper backup plan but certainly much better than RAID. There are several backup programs that can provide automated backups in this way.

 

[valdier]

I think there's a confusion here between data security and data availability. As already stated, RAID does little, if anything to ensure data security and can decrease it. Its advantage, and why it is used in enterprises that need to run 24/7 services - along with a good backup policy - is that it provides enhanced availability.

The OP asked about data security, not availability, so I think it is correct to say that RAID is not the appropriate solution. Two disks with an automated backup solution will provide better data protection than RAID. Not as good as a proper backup plan but certainly much better than RAID. There are several backup programs that can provide automated backups in this way.

I do understand that confusion in the wording I used.

What I *could* potentially do, is put a RAID 1 with two drives, with a third drive that just holds automated daily backups and delete anything over a year old on a daily basis. I would like to give them a system that will secure them to some degree (including data availability in the word secure), and they have a VERY limited budget for hardware. (I am a programmer primarily).

*My* biggest worry is drive failure that leaves them with a useless system and no way to recover, hence, going with RAID.

Backups are something I have pushed for years, they refuse to do it, so I am stuck with figuring something out for my own peace of mind.

 

[TyrOd]

I think there's a confusion here between data security and data availability. As already stated, RAID does little, if anything to ensure data security and can decrease it. Its advantage, and why it is used in enterprises that need to run 24/7 services - along with a good backup policy - is that it provides enhanced availability.

The OP asked about data security, not availability, so I think it is correct to say that RAID is not the appropriate solution. Two disks with an automated backup solution will provide better data protection than RAID. Not as good as a proper backup plan but certainly much better than RAID. There are several backup programs that can provide automated backups in this way.

I do understand that confusion in the wording I used.

What I *could* potentially do, is put a RAID 1 with two drives, with a third drive that just holds automated daily backups and delete anything over a year old on a daily basis. I would like to give them a system that will secure them to some degree (including data availability in the word secure), and they have a VERY limited budget for hardware. (I am a programmer primarily).

*My* biggest worry is drive failure that leaves them with a useless system and no way to recover, hence, going with RAID.

Backups are something I have pushed for years, they refuse to do it, so I am stuck with figuring something out for my own peace of mind.

Well that's a really crappy situation to be put in. I'm sorry bout that.

A diy mini-itx build with RAID1 + independent internal drive with a high frequency automated differential backup is probably your best bet.

If you have a license for Acronis TI you could make everything including dumping 1+ year old backups a completely automated process in the background with minimal use of system resources and totally transparent to your clients.

That's what I would do.

Best Regards

 

[valdier]

Well that's a really crappy situation to be put in. I'm sorry bout that.

A diy mini-itx build with RAID1 + independent internal drive with a high frequency automated differential backup is probably your best bet.

If you have a license for Acronis TI you could make everything including dumping 1+ year old backups a completely automated process in the background with minimal use of system resources and totally transparent to your clients.

That's what I would do.

Best Regards

Actually, this seems like the best option, I had forgotten about Acronis over the years, thank you