Quote (Ghot @ Jul 12 2017 12:13am)
RAID 1 is two HDDs working as ONE HDD.
Each HDD is an exact copy of the other...always. You make a new text file...it will be made on both HDDs. But in my computer, you will only SEE one HDD, even though there are really two HDDs.
/e Let's say we tell you to go ahead.....make a clone...what you will end up with is TWO C: drives. NOT a C: drive and a usable copy.
Both the C: drive and the clone will be bootable...all the time.
It's truly a waste of HDDs.
Thanks for explaining. but i still see RAID 1 and cloning, as exactly the same thing, except RAID 1 is constantly cloning all the time. Technically if a hdd fails in raid 1, you can just boot from the non failed drive.
Same for cloning. except the cloned drive will not be completely up to date. but at least my cloned drive will have 4 years of data.
i got a 4tb hdd. i will still have 3tb available to use, which is more than enough.
Ive read that an image backup will take up around 25% less space. so instead of using 1tb , ill use 750gb.
I do like the advantage of RAID 1 constantly copying all data between the drives. But i do not like that it will obviously copy any errors or issues, such as a virus. that is why i would prefer a clone
ive read this "There is one advantage to cloning for backups. Should your main drive crash, you can swap in a cloned drive and be back in action almost immediately. With an image, you’d have to buy a new internal drive and restore the backup to it. "
i guess ill do back up images for now. but then i would need to purchase a new drive if my main 1 fails?
This post was edited by noob_whacker on Jul 11 2017 10:27pm