raid0 and raid1 question

[iamtrout]

I've got a few questions about raid...

raid0 has no fault tolerance, so what happens when a fault occurs? Do you lose all your data or just
that little piece of data that wasn't written correctly? Could that regularly lead to BIG problems? i.e. need to
reformat hard drive, corruption of windows?

And also let me get this straight. Since raid1 mirrors one drive onto the other, it effectively molds, say, an array
with two 120GB hard drives into one slightly faster 120GB HDD? So while normally you'd have 240GB to play with
if you raid1 it you throw away that other 120GB for the sake of mirroring?

Thanks for your attention.

 

[Prototype]

I was wondering the same thing. I'm not really sure what the difference between the two are.

 

[saltedeggman]

fault tolerance meaning that if one drive fail to operation, the whole partition is gone..!!
meaning you have to repartition your drive...and format it and everyting...
meaning your data from the raid0 partition is GONE...lost forever...

raid1 will not increase performance just security...

 

[saltedeggman]

yes...to last question...you will only get 120gb of storage...

the other...is mirror...oppose to raid0..you get 240gb of storage...

to me RAID1 is fore server only...
harddrive are lasting longer and longer...
so...raid0 is more practical than raid1 for everyday user

 

[iamtrout]

holy cow. Will raid0 often encounter hard drive failures, or is it just like a once in a year thing?

 

[wasnlos]

and even if it was only once in a year, that's simply not tolerable in my opinion.
you know, you always loose your data when you are just about to do a backup .

 

[saltedeggman]

ask yourself this question...

did you ever have a drive failure...??

well i never had a failure...

 

[iamtrout]

nice. I was just scared because it seems like so many people on these forums have had their drives ruined
because of raid0, so I thought that maybe it was a regular occurance.

 

[AluminumStudios]

I'd never run RAID 0. I've had hard drives die on me and I"ve seen it happen to others. With RAID0 you have two hard drives - twice the chance of loosing everything if one dies.

RAID 1 is impractical for a desktop (and for my buget). What I'd really like is RAID 5, but that requires a much more expensive card. The only IDE RAID card that I know of that does RAID5 is made by Adaptec and costs $390.

RAID 5 is beautiful (all of my servers at work have SCSI RAID 5). RAID 5 requires a minimum of 3 drives. It stripes the data like RAID 0, but adds parity information. So you get a speed boost from striping and if a single drive dies, you toss in a blank and it will rebuild the data that was on it using the remaining data and parity. You loose 1 drive's space for overhead. (so if you have three 100gig drives you get 200 gigs of space out of it.)

My departments mail server recently blew a hard drive in a RAID 5. 1 hour later I had EVERYTHING back up and running by tossing in a blank and activiting it's rebuild function (which was in the RAID cards BIOS).

 

[wasnlos]

RAID 5 is something totally different. it works, it's safe and can be fixed.
but as ALUMINIUM STUDIOS also pointed out, the costs go up like a rocket, different worlds and not for home use.

it's always the same, nothing in life's for free.

 

[RanDum72]

I've been running a RAID 0 array forever and its as reliable as my regular harddrive setup. It all depends on your setup
and the controller card ( I have an IWILL SIDE, highpoint chipset). RAID 0+ 1 is the simplest setup for both speed and security, the only catch
is you need at least 4 drives (some controllers allow only three but the third one has to the same capacity as the two RAID 0 drives combined)

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Some good info on RAID Configurations

 

[Lucky]

I'd never use RAID0. The chance of a catastrophic failure rises in proportion to how many drives you use. Unacceptable risk for me. I do use RAID1 on my File server, dual 80 gigs.

 

[Deeko]

Raid 0 isn't as dangerous as people make it seem. I've never had a hard drive fail in any of my computers. Now, if your running two 7200 RPM drives right next to each other, that will generate a bit of heat, so I would recommend having some decent ventalation in your case, but if you are considering RAID, you probably know enough to already have that.

 

[x86]

<< I've got a few questions about raid...

raid0 has no fault tolerance, so what happens when a fault occurs? Do you lose all your data or just
that little piece of data that wasn't written correctly? Could that regularly lead to BIG problems? i.e. need to
reformat hard drive, corruption of windows?

And also let me get this straight. Since raid1 mirrors one drive onto the other, it effectively molds, say, an array
with two 120GB hard drives into one slightly faster 120GB HDD? So while normally you'd have 240GB to play with
if you raid1 it you throw away that other 120GB for the sake of mirroring?

Thanks for your attention. >>



If a drive fails on RAID 0, then all of the data is lost. On RAID 1, one drive has the sole task of mirroring the data. It isn't exactly "throwing away" the other drive, because RAID 1 provides security and backup. By the way, RAID 1 does not provide noticible increased performance.

-x86

 

[x86]

<< holy cow. Will raid0 often encounter hard drive failures, or is it just like a once in a year thing? >>



Think about it logically: If you have a regular IDE setup and a drive results in failure, all of the data is lost, this is the same for RAID 0. Even if you have the best HDDs, they are still going to fail under any configuration, during sometime or another. RAID simply provides theoretically twice the performance of a regular IDE configuration.

-x86

 

[|TOAST|]

For $116 (on pricewatch) you can get a 4 IDE channel 33/66MHz RAID 0 and 1 card... I shoulda gone with that Promise Fasttrak 100 TX4 since I got a TX2 and RAID 0 is kicking butt for me but I wish I had the parity... guess that'll be my next upgrade... RAID 5... only need one more hard drive and the card for that.

Oh and BTW use the RAID 5 that you configure through Disk Manager in Win2k or Win XP to get to RAID5 with 3 hard drives (and for IDE performance always get the same 3 hard drives and give them their own channels).. you can install the OS initally of a 1 GB exra drive or something and then format the 3 onte h controller for RAID 5 and then install teh OS once again on that for a total (OS partition inclusive) RAID 5 solution I believe.

 

[dj4005]

I've also been running RAID-0 for a while, having just upgraded from an Abit KT-7 to an Abit KR7A.

Yes - RAID-0 has as much fault tollerance as a single drive. But, there is a very simple solution - MAKE BACKUPS (DUH!!!!)

What is the big deal, people????

A RAID controller is no more inherently unstable than a non-RAID controller.

If you don't trust the drives you are running on, dump them and get new ones. Face it, if you are feeling the need to run a RAID, you aren't a pauper and another drive or two isn't that big an expense in the general scheme of things.

If you are that paranoid about your data, do RAID 0+0. Make weekly, daily or hourly backups. Don't just listen to the rumor-mongers about how dangerous this setup is - DO something about it.