Raid 1 Advice

[deerslayer]

I have two SATA drives I would like to set up in RAID 1.

I plan to run this off of the motherboard controller (separate controller is not out of the question). The array would be strictly for file storage. Boot drive is separate.

If I set the array up on motherboard A, and it dies, can I move the array to motherboard B without data loss?

The motherboards would not be identical.

If a standalone controller is my best option, what controller would you suggest?

 

[Zxian]

Why do you want RAID1? If you are concerned about data loss, implementing a proper backup solution is what you want to do.

To answer part of your question, I have had success moving RAID0 and RAID1 arrays from one Intel-based motherboard to another. I have done this from the X38 to Z68 to Z77. YMMV of course.

Compatability of hardware based RAID arrays across different controllers is never guaranteed. You might get lucky if you stay within a particular vendor, but I wouldn't rely on it. In my cases, I always had backups of the data stored on the arrays in case anything went wrong.

 

[smitbret]

I have two SATA drives I would like to set up in RAID 1.

I plan to run this off of the motherboard controller (separate controller is not out of the question). The array would be strictly for file storage. Boot drive is separate.

If I set the array up on motherboard A, and it dies, can I move the array to motherboard B without data loss?

The motherboards would not be identical.

If a standalone controller is my best option, what controller would you suggest?

My advice is not to waste your time and money.

If you are doing RAID 1 for security, that 2nd HDD in an external enclosure and used for daily backups is far more valuable.

If you are doing it because of the performance benefit, then save the money and get an SSD, it'll be faster.

RAID 1 for 90% of home use is silly and a waste of HDD space.

 

[deerslayer]

What software would you suggest for daily backups?

 

[_Rick_]

I would suggest using software RAID. It's available on Win 7 from what I recall, and is portable to other Windows 7+ machines, and probably works even with Windows 2000.

That is, if you want to use RAID at all.
I prefer having RAID, as it allows me to have a hands-off part to data integrity, whereas a backup is somewhat more bothersome to maintain in working order.

 

[smitbret]

I would suggest using software RAID. It's available on Win 7 from what I recall, and is portable to other Windows 7+ machines, and probably works even with Windows 2000.

That is, if you want to use RAID at all.
I prefer having RAID, as it allows me to have a hands-off part to data integrity, whereas a backup is somewhat more bothersome to maintain in working order.

This is exactly the purpose of RAID and also why RAID 1 is pointless for home use. If uptime is a concern, then get a RAID 5 or 6 type setup. That way you don't waste half your disk space. You already have 2 drives, grab a 3rd one and double your space. RAID 1 is just generally inefficient with very little benefit to the end user.

This is also where 3rd party RAID like unRAID, FlexRAID and SnapRAID make hardware RAID and even ZFS RAIDz even more impractical. Run out of space on your array? Import another empty HDD (of any size), rebuild your parity and done. No moving data around so you can break up your array and rebuild it with the new drives. Have some old, unused drives lying around? Throw then in there, too. They don't have to be the same size like ZFS or controller based RAID. They also save wear and tear on HDDs since the data isn't striped so only one drive at a time spins up. This also addresses OP's concern about losing the MB controller. It's a complete non-issue here.

They may not be solutions for everyone, but the practical benefits warrant at least a cursory investigation by any home user looking to set up a server.

 

[Zxian]

I prefer having RAID, as it allows me to have a hands-off part to data integrity...[snip]

Just wanted to make a small distinction. RAID offers higher data availability - not integrity. If you end up with data corruption on one of your two drives, how do you tell which one is correct?

 

[_Rick_]

Just wanted to make a small distinction. RAID offers higher data availability - not integrity. If you end up with data corruption on one of your two drives, how do you tell which one is correct?

By looking at it - if I can't tell which one is right and which one is wrong, then it probably wasn't important data in the first place 😀

Also, most data corruption renders it unreadable, and does not flip bits - at least when it comes to HDDs, as they usually have some sectorwise-checksumming done somewhere - otherwise there would be no read errors 😉

 

[smitbret]

By looking at it - if I can't tell which one is right and which one is wrong, then it probably wasn't important data in the first place 😀

So, you just throw each set of data onto a 3rd HDD and try it out until one of the two works?

This sounds a little naive.

😉

 

[_Rick_]

So, you just throw each set of data onto a 3rd HDD and try it out until one of the two works?

This sounds a little naive.

😉

Nope.

Mount each drive, reverse-lookup the affected file, and check which version of the file is broken.

Might not be possible for some types of data (i.e. archived isos or the like), but for pictures, text and music, it should be relatively easy to figure out where something went wrong, and in what way, especially because you know at which point in the file the difference is.

And again, I've never had an array desync because of a false readable value - usually it's an unreadable sector, making the entire scenario quite unlikely. And then it'll be a single (maybe a handful at worst) flipped bit, which can often be reconstructed from context.