roger_27
Beta member
- Messages
- 1
- Location
- California
Yeah yeah, we hear it all the time, redundancy != backup. But here is my conundrum...
I have an extra tower, an extra copy of win server 2012 , some extra ram, extra mobo, extra raid controller! extra CPU, extra power supply bla bla. All I need is some hard drives. But that's where I am getting stuck.
I was thinking three, 2 TB sata drives on hardware raid 5 , or two 2 TB drives on hardware raid 1. I could install win server 2012 and set it to auto backup the computers every week or however often I want. I could even make a network drive and map it on my computers. Sounds like a blast!
But the cost of a few 2 tb drives, makes me reconsider. Is this a good idea for backing up my data? Or should I just buy an external drive that doesn't have redundancy and set it to backup ?
What would you do? I think my difference in this situation is that they are pretty much the same cost to me. About $200 dollars.
Any advice is appreciated!
PS, because of the extra features, I am leaning towards a server myself.
I have an extra tower, an extra copy of win server 2012 , some extra ram, extra mobo, extra raid controller! extra CPU, extra power supply bla bla. All I need is some hard drives. But that's where I am getting stuck.
I was thinking three, 2 TB sata drives on hardware raid 5 , or two 2 TB drives on hardware raid 1. I could install win server 2012 and set it to auto backup the computers every week or however often I want. I could even make a network drive and map it on my computers. Sounds like a blast!
But the cost of a few 2 tb drives, makes me reconsider. Is this a good idea for backing up my data? Or should I just buy an external drive that doesn't have redundancy and set it to backup ?
What would you do? I think my difference in this situation is that they are pretty much the same cost to me. About $200 dollars.
Any advice is appreciated!
PS, because of the extra features, I am leaning towards a server myself.