-----Original Message-----
"PJK" said in news:19d6301c41cd1$19eb4c50
[email protected]:
On what? That it provides disaster recovery? Yes. That it will have
no impact on performance? No, because of the doubled writes (no, the
performance doesn't halve but there is a performance hit). That it is
cost effective for disaster recovery? Depends on your need for how fast
the system must be back up versus cheaper removable media, like CD-Rs,
DVDs, or tape that can be stored safely offsite (so they don't burn up
with the computer), aren't susceptible to surges, don't wear out while
continuously running in the background, or consume any power. Mirrors
do fail. You get one snapshot of your system, so you cannot use it, for
example, to go back to a snapshot before that trojan infected your
system and so thoroughly corrupted it that the system is unusable.
Mirroring is not for backing up your system and provides no history.
Mirroring is for disaster recovery to get quickly your system back up
with almost the same setup it had when the primary drive fails. You are
assuming mirroring is going to be your panacea to a dead hard drive. If
this is for a home system, FIRST you need to consider a backup strategy.
If this is for work use, backup strategy should have already been in
place, but your "my drive failed" message indicates it is not a server
at your company. Mirroring is for when you need your downed system
backup right NOW! Even with mirroring, you will still need to perform
backups to recover data from accidental deletion or corruption and to
provide a snapshot to let you return the system to a prior known good
state.
--
__________________________________________________________ ____________
Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others. E-mail not accepted.
__________________________________________________________ ____________
.To vanguard,Thanks for the thought provoking reply.
