newbie questions about RAID 1

Thanks for the feedback Bob, your cautions are well taken. You are probably right that a daily backup of my thesis files would be as good as, or better than, a RAID1 system. I also now have them backed up to a USB drive which I store in a fireproof safe. A little paranoid? Yes, so close to finishing, I am!

My old system became corrupt because power failed while shutting down in a storm. I now have backup power which has already saved me twice.

I feel relatively safe about virus protection with 3 apps running, and docs on a separate drive.

The other question is restoring the system drive in RAID1. My understanding is that RAID1 would allow the OS to be completely restored even if one drive failed, saving the hassle of reinstalling all my software and settings. Is this true, and how complicated / time-consuming is this in practice?

The other option I have heard pros and cons about is Ghost. What is your opinion of Ghost vs. RAID1 for the system drive?

Sorry that's a title I haven't used in years. It failed me too many times so I moved on. I now use CLONEZILLA and if the RAID is a hardware RAID then there is no issue. However I can not suggest any home user look at RAID 1. The benefits are not there compared to simpler solutions.
Bob

Thanks for the feedback on RAID and Ghost and the recommendation of Clonezilla, I will research this option a little more.

I just read a comment today on another site stating I might need to contact Microsoft by phone and obtain a reactivation key after cloning Win XP. Is this true? If so, I can't imagine it being "painless" as they describe.

But I didn't do anything odd like clone it and try to boot the clone in another machine!

I don't think they were booting in another machine either. I can post the link if it's not against the rules. Maybe they were just being extremely cautious as to what *might* happen. The first time they mentioned it they said it was unlikely but later it seemed to assume this would need to be done. I have no interest in calling Microsoft for any reason.

I'm continuing to review older posts on Cnet which I noticed you contributed to significantly. You seem to have migrated from Ghost to Acronis to g4u and now Clonezilla. I might have missed some steps...

I just watched a Youtube comparison of Acronis and Clonezilla and the conclusion was it's a toss-up but helpful to have Linux experience with Clonezilla, which I don't. So I'm leaning towards Acronis. Is this accurate in your opinion?

BTW, I don't care if I have to pay $50 for something that is easy to use and reliable instead of getting it for free. I just want to minimize down time in a crash.

Activation under normal situation is automated and even when it required a human at Microsoft never incurred a fee. Go figure.

BTW if you let people do the Chicken Little fretting they will tell you thing like adding ram causes activation. Go figure.
Bob

My last comment might have been clear. The $50 I mentioned was for purchasing Acronis not an activation fee for Microsoft.

So how about the usability of Clonezilla versus Acronis... is the Linux experience a factor (I have none)?

All I want to do is have a system disk ready to replace one that fails. Simple and reliable is the main goal.

In my previous post I meant to say "My last comment might NOT have been clear".

I have not been using Ghost or Acronis for a very long time now that Clonezilla and Gparted have matured.

However there are some that need a mouse interface or they are lost. Clonezilla uses the old pick an item from a list interface. For me it seems easy.

Clonezilla uses Linux? Given how many times I use Clonezilla I can't say I every would write that any Linux knowledge is needed.
Bob