Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee
It's not bad the way it is. At work we have several network drives connecting to the desktop G:. H: I: N: M: W: plus maybe one or two local drives C: and/or D: it's just a matter of remember what is were. It can be thought of as having all your eggs in one basket. Everything stored on a single drive and if that drive goes so does all the data to an extent. There ways to recover it depending on what happens but the worst case is it is totally gone. I would love to have a large hard drive to back up the data I have on the smaller drive that I feel is important onto. I would still run the seperate drive even if I had one large drive. Old school I suppose. I still use DOS when ever I can to copy data through batch files.
|
If your worried about losing data or whatnot, I would simply have a harddrive (SATA because its clearly faster than IDE) for the OS and such, then have everything condensed onto one large drive set as a slave. Then, if your still worried about it, get two ($80x2 wouldn't be that bad for security and piece of mind) and run them in RAID1 config. Exact mirror of the first that way if one fails, you always have the second. If you go that route though, theres really no need for one for the OS and such though.
Threaded Mode
