Reflections on RAID 1 for Win 7

Louisaz · 27 Sep 2010

Is RAID 1 (2 mirrored disks) a reasonable and logical safeguard? Given the reasonably low cost of large capacity HDDs and the fact that they WILL fail, I think so.

RAID 1 configuration will create two identical HDDs. Ergo, if either disk fails the other HDD will still be in operation. However, RAID does not protect or prevent corruption or loss of FILES and will duplicate whatever defect exists in both HDDs.

RAID 1 does provide hardware protection if either HDD fails -- you have a duplicate and will still be in operation, assuming that you have a hardware failure and not a software failure. This is an important redundancy as HDDs have a limited lifespan and do fail predictably.

IF you have an external HDD for data backup AND a RAID 1 configuration for HDD hardware redundancy, IMHO you have excellent protection against HDD failure -- that is inevitable.

On my new build, I have my OS (Windows 7, Professional 64-bit) on my 0 drive (Drive C), which is a 650GB SATA. My second internal HDD, Drive 1 (Drive E), is a 500GB SATA. I have used Windows 7 backup to place and image of Drive C on Drive E. I have a 500GB external HDD for DATA file backup. I also have used Win 7 to create a recovery CD that can boot and repair my PC if the OS is corrupted.

My initial theory was that IF my primary C drive failed, because I have an "image" of it on my E drive, I could install a new primary HDD and copy the backup image of my (failed C) from E to my new C drive -- and I'd be back in business when I rebooted. That sounds good theoretically, I'm not sure it will work in reality.

IMO, two identical, redundant HDDs (RAID 1) sounds like the best way to prevent downtime and to ensure you'll continue with at least one good primary HDD.

IF I were starting from scratch, I think I would use an initial RAID 1 configuration with two (2) 1TB SATA drives and an 1TB external backup for data.

Comments?

Louis

Bare Foot Kid · 27 Sep 2010

Hello Louisaz.

To me, it's less trouble to use Windows on 1 Hard Disk Drive (HDD) and when installed and all programs/apps are loaded to make an image; then if anything goes south in 15 minutes I can be back in business without all the RAID hassles; have a look at the link below though I use Paragon, Macrium is free for home use.

Imaging with free Macrium

pparks1 · 27 Sep 2010

As long as you don't assume that RAID is equivalent to a backup, I think you are ok. With RAID 1, you ensure that you can keep running and continue to reboot and have a working system in the event that 1 physical disk dies. That's all you get. You get no protection from doing something stupid, a virus/worm wiping everything out, an accidental delete, etc. Also, in the event that you get a power surge or your house is struck by lightning, you might lose both hard drives if they are turned on and running at the same time.

I'm a firm believer in keeping 1). backups of actual data on external drives and offsite 2). Keeping periodic images of your OS drive that you can restore in the event of a failure. To me, this gives you the most robust backup solution with the least amount of complication. Not to mention, you could buy 2 drives...and store your OS images on that second drive and also use all of the left over capacity for additional storage...unlike a RAID 1 config where 50% of the drive space is completely lost.

Louisaz · 27 Sep 2010

Bare Foot Kid said:

Hello Louisaz.

To me, it's less trouble to use Windows on 1 Hard Disk Drive (HDD) and when installed and all programs/apps are loaded to make an image; then if anything goes south in 15 minutes I can be back in business without all the RAID hassles; have a look at the link below though I use Paragon, Macrium is free for home use.

Imaging with free Macrium

I've been looking into Paragon, Macrium, and Casper. They all look like they can make a clone of a HDD, which IMHO is very desirable. I know from many hard-won experience that HDD are finicky and they may have a MTBF of 100,000 but that's the average and they can go anytime.

I can afford to purchase one of these and don't have to stick with freeware. I think that these mirror (cloning) softwares MUST have a simple way to do incremental backups -- once the initial clone is created. What's your personal experience with Paragon and Macrium. Both are on my list. FWIW, I really like the looks of Casper and it's easy incremental backup. It does have a relatively small user base, but those who have it love it.

Thanks,

Louis

Louisaz · 27 Sep 2010

pparks1 said:

As long as you don't assume that RAID is equivalent to a backup, I think you are ok. With RAID 1, you ensure that you can keep running and continue to reboot and have a working system in the event that 1 physical disk dies. That's all you get. You get no protection from doing something stupid, a virus/worm wiping everything out, an accidental delete, etc. Also, in the event that you get a power surge or your house is struck by lightning, you might lose both hard drives if they are turned on and running at the same time.

I'm a firm believer in keeping 1). backups of actual data on external drives and offsite 2). Keeping periodic images of your OS drive that you can restore in the event of a failure. To me, this gives you the most robust backup solution with the least amount of complication. Not to mention, you could buy 2 drives...and store your OS images on that second drive and also use all of the left over capacity for additional storage...unlike a RAID 1 config where 50% of the drive space is completely lost.

Have you considered one of the cloning softwares with incremental backup. It seems to me that having an external, cloned 3.5" HDD that is easy to backup (and take with you) may be the way to go. I am not finding Win 7, very easy to make images or backups, and I'm not sure if it will make a cloned image of a HDD. I could be wrong about that.

Louis

gregrocker · 27 Sep 2010

Cloning is to copy one HD to another when replacing HD's, not for backup.

Win7 Backup Imaging, Macrium, Paragon are three excellent apps that can save reliable backup images - even incrementally. I would save a baseline image and then do separate incrementals and it should be failsafe.

Louisaz · 27 Sep 2010

Agreed. I'll use Windows 7 Professional to create incremental backups of the image I've already created. Just for grins, I downloaded, installed and tried Casper ver. 6.0 (trial version). No problems. Very direct interface. I like it.

pparks1 · 27 Sep 2010

Louisaz said:

Have you considered one of the cloning softwares with incremental backup. It seems to me that having an external, cloned 3.5" HDD that is easy to backup (and take with you) may be the way to go. I am not finding Win 7, very easy to make images or backups, and I'm not sure if it will make a cloned image of a HDD. I could be wrong about that.

Louis

Yes, I actually own Acronis True Image 2010 and it does incremental backups. However, I choose to backup my data with robocopy and put it onto my external drive. The reason I use robocopy is because it synchronizes only the files that have changed since the last time I ran it..so my backups are super fast. And by not using software to backup my files, I don't have to have the software to restore it. Just plug it into any computer and my files are right there.

Louisaz · 28 Sep 2010

Hmmm...Robocopy. Let me look into that. I like the idea of automated backup so that the when the primary HDD fails (which it will eventually do) you have CYA and your redundant HDD is current.

gregrocker · 28 Sep 2010

Louisaz said:

Agreed. I'll use Windows 7 Professional to create incremental backups of the image I've already created. Just for grins, I downloaded, installed and tried Casper ver. 6.0 (trial version). No problems. Very direct interface. I like it.

I would save that image as a baseline, too. Having more than one imaging app and image makes it more failsafe. Win7 backup image can fail although I haven't had it do so yet - even to another HD.