Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We have two load balancers, one used as hot-standby. Would you recommend me using a RAID1 setup in case of a harddisk failure? Or is RAID1 not needed as in case of a failure the hot-standby server takes over?

share|improve this question
It's Murphy: as long as you have a well-maintained RAID 1, nothing ever happens. Try having a server without any disk redundancy, and it will crash and burn at the worst possible moment. (Been there, done that ;)) – Piskvor Feb 22 '12 at 11:08
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Personally, I would use RAID1 in this case (actually, we do have an HPC cluster here with a similar setup: two master servers, one of which serves as standby; both have RAID1 disks). If the machine is important enough for you to pay for an HA pair, the minimal extra costs for RAID1 should not be an obstacle.

share|improve this answer

If the disks are non-RAIDed and the hot-standby goes active for whatever reason, a simple broken disk on that server will disable your whole setup, making your whole work useless.

In other words: When doing that kind of HA setup, I would consider a RAID essential. It's not that more expensive to justify the added risk (IMHO, of course).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.