Virtual "RAID 1" in flash memory by splitting into equal sections?

[seanspotatobusiness]

I would like to store a small amount of important data on some USB flash drives or microSD cards. Since parts of memory can sometimes fail and lead to loss of data, I was wondering whether there is some kind of software that makes a sort of virtual RAID 1 on a single drive by splitting it in half or even in thirds and then have two or three copies of the same data in the different sections so that if the memory should fail in one section there would be others. Of course I could just copy everthing two or three times but that's a lot more manual effort to maintain.

 

[USAFRet]

I would like to store a small amount of important data on some USB flash drives or microSD cards. Since parts of memory can sometimes fail and lead to loss of data, I was wondering whether there is some kind of software that makes a sort of virtual RAID 1 on a single drive by splitting it in half or even in thirds and then have two or three copies of the same data in the different sections so that if the memory should fail in one section there would be others. Of course I could just copy everthing two or three times but that's a lot more manual effort to maintain.

1. That is absolutely useless.
In theory, you could probably force a RAID 1 onto two partitions on the same physical device. But....useless.
Partitions on flash memory, or even SSD's, are not physical sections as you see on a traditional HDD.

2. RAID 1 is not a backup

3. There are easier and better ways to do this.
There are multiple applications that would do a backup to some other drive on whatever schedule you want.

4. Flash drives are a bad thing to use for data longevity.

 

[mdd1963]

Any data/photos of value should be backed up...preferably twice, plus twice more in free cloud storage, if possible.

Having copies of things that can be downloaded again are just matters of convenience and time saved.

With 1 TB drives available for $35-$40 (I got a 3 TB external for $100 3 years ago) there is really no excuse today for data loss....

Heck, I've got a 128 MB USB flash drive that still works fine after 13 years....(is it my sole copy of something? of course not)

 

[seanspotatobusiness]

The data I need to save is less than 1 MB and I want it to be stored offline so nothing I can schedule to happen automatically, nor will it change frequently nor need to be accessed frequently.

I guess I'll just go with plan B and copy and paste my files three times so I have three copies of everything.

My intention was to copy my data in this way to multiple flash drives rather than keep only a single one.

According to my reading (following USAFRet's warning that flash memory is a bad option for data longevity) I found that the more worn out a flash drive is, the shorter the time it can hold data before it needs to be powered. This means I could either a) buy new drives or microSD cards specifically for this purpose since they will not be re-written to very many times or b) start an electronics project that will periodically apply power from an alkaline or non-rechargeable lithum battery to my flash drive or card. Unfortunately I already have an array of unfinished projects so I should probably go with option a)

 

[mdd1963]

1 megabyte?

Buy a 3 pack of USB flash drives for $19 or so... spend 25 more cents on a few CD's or DVDs....

Having 3 copies on one device is zero fault tolerance save for perhaps a loss of a bit on the device itself....akin to having two partitions for a RAID 1 on the same drive.

Encrypt whatever it is (if needed and/or sensitive), and store in Dropbox, Amazon Drive, P-Cloud, Box, Asus Web storage, Google Sync/Backup, Degoo, Magenta, or any one of several free cloud plans around the globe.

Surely one of the above will endure....

 

[seanspotatobusiness]

Yes, 1 MB. Maybe even less.

I'm well aware of the limitations of having mutiple copies on one device. That's precisely what I outline in my OP. It's not zero fault tolerance if protects against the loss of "a bit on the device itself". I explicitly stated in my OP that I wanted to use multiple devices to have multiple back ups. It's all there in the original post.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, 1 MB. Maybe even less.

I'm well aware of the limitations of having mutiple copies on one device. That's precisely what I outline in my OP. It's not zero fault tolerance if protects against the loss of "a bit on the device itself". I explicitly stated in my OP that I wanted to use multiple devices to have multiple back ups. It's all there in the original post.

What you asked for:
"some kind of software that makes a sort of virtual RAID 1 on a single drive by splitting it in half or even in thirds and then have two or three copies of the same data in the different sections"

Different partitions on the same device is still 'on the same device'.

 

[seanspotatobusiness]

Yes, 1 MB. Maybe even less.

I'm well aware of the limitations of having mutiple copies on one device. That's precisely what I outline in my OP. It's not zero fault tolerance if protects against the loss of "a bit on the device itself". I explicitly stated in my OP that I wanted to use multiple devices to have multiple back ups. It's all there in the original post.

What you asked for:
"some kind of software that makes a sort of virtual RAID 1 on a single drive by splitting it in half or even in thirds and then have two or three copies of the same data in the different sections"

Different partitions on the same device is still 'on the same device'.

I don't understand how you could think I'm the one who is confused about this? Yes, the same device. I wanted multiple copies of the same data on one device so that if one memory cell goes bad I still have my data. What is so hard to understand? My reference to RAID 1 was an anology hence "a sort of virtual" beforehand.

 

[USAFRet]

A RAID 1 is not really "multiple copies" The OS and the user sees only one 'copy' of data.
Delete it, and that is gone.
If the physical drive fails, that data is gone.

If one 'partition' on a physical USB stick fails, the entire thing is likely unreadable.
Partitions on flash drives or SSD's are not physical delineations, but rather just logical ones.
The particular cells that the data is stored in is handled by the drive firmware, and is only presented to you visually as individual 'partitions'.

 

[mdd1963]

The entire device or interface to it is more likely to fail rather than having some minuscule corruption of a single bit...; knowing you had 4 copies on the device that has no failed completely will likely be of little comfort. (yes, having 3 copies on one device might hypothetically protect you from a 'single cell' corruption scenario....given enough time waiting for that sort of specific failure....)

Fork out the $20-$40 on an external drive, grab a pair of flash drives, and 2 CD ROMs and/or DVDs, and, never trust a single device. One of those copies will surely survive...

If you steadfastly insist your single device scenario is best and likely goes far enough to prevent data loss, well, ...good luck with it.