Is 120GB X 2 RAID Overdoing it?

[BatmanNate]

I recently created a 4 drive RAID-0 array using a Promise 100 TX2, for 240 GB. (4x60) I've often pondered setting up some sort of tape backups like they have at work, but upon looking into it I discovered that the price tag for entering into a decent DAT4 setup is quite an obstacle. Luckily I only keep media stuff on the drive that I have backed up on CD already.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<<

<<

<< I see alot of people recomending a full 120gig backup and wonder why. Is all that 120gig filled up with "data," created by programs? I never backup my programs! just the data the the programs create. Saves alot of backup space. Yea, i created a CD of my operating system when it was freshly installed, and I re-create it whenever I make a hardware change. I make sure and keep all Install CD's in good condition! >>


of course we're talking about data, not programs. divx, mp3's, pron, warez, that can fill up 240 gigs easy. 240GB of programs? come on.

ya should have gotten 4 60/80GB and did a RAID 5 or something. of course assuming you have bottomless pockets 😛😉 >>



Um, isn't the minimum number of disks in a RAID 5 array 6? >>


not really sure, i always thought it was 3, but hey i could be wrong 🙂

 

[manwithplan]

as far as i knew you could do a raid5 with 3 drives, 1 redundant drive and 2 ruunning essentailly as raid0. feel free to correct me if im wrong 🙂

are there many raid cards out there that will do raid5? ive been toying with the idea of a raid5 setup if i start doing some video editing where id want the speed (dont have the cash for scsi) and would definitely like the safety net of a redundant drive. I know a lot of onboard raid controllers wont do raid5, that why im wondering about the controller cards...

c.

 

[BurnItDwn]

240gb is good. i got 258 in this box though 🙂

75+75+60+40+4+4

 

[jh0sken612]

<< 240gb is good. i got 258 in this box though 🙂

75+75+60+40+4+4 >>



I've got an idea, get rid of the useless slow probably 5400rpm drives, and buy a GOOD 100gb! Wow!

 

[mooseAndSquirrel]

<< PLEEEEASE tell me you have 240gb worth of tape backup for those drives??? That woudl be a horrible mess if one of the drives died with no backups :-( >>



I have the same setup (2x120 on RAID 0 off of my Soyo Dragon Plus). What I use mine for is primarily a massive MP3 collection and a growing Video (SVCD for the most part) collection. So pretty much the files are created and then never change. So what I do is rip to CD's. When I make an MP3, I stash it into \dataTempMusic. Once I get around to copying these to CDR, I then move them to \dataMusic.

While 300+ CD's will be an admitted pain in the arse, I think tape backup systems are outlandishly expensive.

 

[x86]

<< hm.

if you don't already have the drives... but i think you said you did... but anwyays:

i think it would be better to do a four drive raid 0 array. the returns in speed should be much more noticable. And i also heard that doing software raid through windows it better than the software raid of the cards themselves such as the promise tx2/4.

so it should be cheaper and have better performance with four 60 gigs, which in the future if you wanted the redudancy, just recreate the array into raid 0 + 1, with the same space as the 120 gigs in raid one, but also the speed of raid 0 for less money, just a bit more heat, and two less spaces in your case.

But do realize this increases the risk of failure by a factor of two. (but with raid 0, which is what i think you are considering, that always seems to be an "acceptable" risk... heh...)

-Mel >>



Wouldn't a 4 RAID config:

1) Be 100% more noisy?
2) Cost more because I would have to buy a new RAID controller.
3) Be less cost effective when considering that the price/capacity ratio decreases as the capacity of the drive increases?

I think the performance gain is negligable.

-x86

 

[Xuttah]

Ghost your drives. The image(s) created will be much much smaller than actually copying raw data. Just an example: My 3.5GB partition, once ghosted, creates a 500MB image. Given, a 7:1 ratio will still leave you with potentially 30+GB worth of image files (assuming that ratio holds up under your imaging). But that's still better than 240GB, and it could be stored on a cheap internal drive, external drive, or even DAT at that point.

 

[FOH]

YES that is way overkill, and the only way you can redeem yourself is to immediately remove one of the drives and send it to me!!!! 😀 😉

Drool Drool Drool