Lost RAID controller -- EOTW?
April 27, 2006 7:26 AM
Subscribe
Some RAID questions about what happens if you lose not a disk but the controller.
I need to build a largish (~1 TB) file server with the drives configured as raid 5. I see lots of discussion out there about how raid 5 helps you recover from a lost HD. But that's only one end of things. If your raid is hardware-based, what happens if you lose your controller card? If you have a spare controller of the same model, will it recognize the drives as an already-existing RAID array? What if you can't obtain the exact same model of controller? Alternatively, what happens to your software-based (Linux or XP) raid 5 array if your boot drive crashes and you have to reinstall the OS? Can you recover your array?
posted by jfuller to computers & internet (11 comments total)
That's the idea, but it's up to the individual card manufacturer to implement it. But cards don't typically fail by shutting off; instead, they fail by screwing up your data for weeks before you finally notice something's a bit odd.
In other words, you still need backups. (RAID cards have a hard time surviving fires and floods, too.)
Alternatively, what happens to your software-based (Linux or XP) raid 5 array if your boot drive crashes and you have to reinstall the OS? Can you recover your array?
If by "boot drive" you mean "root filesystem" -- those are as important as your data, put them on RAID as well. The only thing in Linux that won't work on software RAID is /boot, since the bootloader needs to read it; I get around that by just having multiple /boot partitions with identical content.
But the biggest advantage of software RAID is that the disks will be recognized anywhere. I could take a disk out of my raid-1 mirror at home, put it (alone) in a box at work, tell Linux that it's half a raid-1 mirror, and get at the data fine (and build another half of a mirror from it, if I wanted).
I haven't used Windows software RAID.
Incidentally, be sure to put swap on RAID too. Some people advise not doing this, but I don't understand why -- if a disk fails, you want to keep running, and if that disk is your swap disk and it's not redundant, you won't keep running.
posted by mendel at 7:31 AM on April 27, 2006