Was a RAID the write choice?

[Mr. Happy]

I have a few questions about the use of RAID. I've learned a lot from searching however a lot of information I have found is either too technical or not technical enough. A drive just died and I am evaluating my options: replace it or switch to RAID 1?

Background

First, my main reason for using a RAID is backup and uptime. I work in game design and so am constantly read, writing, deleting and modifying files of every size: my system is a fragmentation nightmare. I have read some stuff about choosing RAID type based on the reads/writes your system is doing but it was for servers and went over my head. I also thought a speed increase would be nice if unncessary. A RAID 1+0 seemed perfect.

My previous build had 4x Seagate Barracudas in RAID 1+0, it was generally fine except it became increasingly unstable and toward the end of life drives were dying left and right (even drives that had just been swapped in).

For my current build I have an EVGA x58 SLI3 motherboard. This motherboard has a RAID 10 option, which I eagerly used with 4x Western Digital 1 TB RE4 drives. However, after setting that up the configuration said this: "RAID 10(0+1)" which is very confusing and annoying! I wanted 1+0 and I don't think that's what I got!)

Windows is on a separate SSD along with my bigger programs like Photoshop and Softimage. The RAID is for media/projects/games/other software

Questions:

1. Today one of my hard drives died. This machine has only existed for about three weeks! It happened shortly after a game crashed, could the two be related? I sometimes suffer frequent program and system crashes from unstable tools/games and I need my system to be able to weather that well.

2. I know that RAID 0+1 can tolerate fewer drive failures, I'm wondering if it also is less reliable in other ways?

3. I am also wondering if having drives in RAID decreases the lifespan of the individual drives? I bought RE4's because they are supposed to be robust and especially good for RAID. Do I chalk it up to a bad batch or...?

4. Does the size of your files and how often they are being read/written affect your choice in RAID type?

5. Would using a RAID 1 be more stable than a nested RAID? I like the speed increase but can live without it if it will give me a more stable system and/or have to replace drives less often?

6. Also, currently I am not doing any sort of external backup. I want to image my Windows drive so I can restore it to a physically new drive when the SSD dies. Should I use the tool built into windows? (it takes forever). I don't intend to backup my RAID externally but if I do it won't be more than once a month. I tried the Windows automatic backup once but that didn't compress anything and also took a long time. What would be the best option there?


TL;DR:
I'm wondering if a nested RAID was really a good option for my situation. I previously had a RAID 1+0 on a different motherboard, it had problems near the end of life. I now have a RAID 10(0+1) which just had a drive failure after only 3 weeks. I'm not sure if 1+0 is worth it let alone 0+1!! Switch to RAID 1?

Maybe some other backup scheme would even be better?



Thank you for putting up with such a long post. I worked to make it concise but didn't want to cut out anything that might be relevant.

 

[VirtualLarry]

First, my main reason for using a RAID is backup and uptime.

Also, currently I am not doing any sort of external backup.

I don't intend to backup my RAID externally but if I do it won't be more than once a month.

Maybe some other backup scheme would even be better?

First off, repeat after me - "RAID IS NOT BACKUP".

Raid is for uptime and availability. It is NOT for backup. If the data is important, then you SHOULD be backing it up externally.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

RAID 10 and RAID 0+1 are the same thing, just implemented slightly differently at a low level.

If the only reasons you're going with RAID are backup (see VirtualLarry's reply) or uptime for a game development workstation, then I think you're going way overboard.

• RAID 10 (or 0+1) is the most performant RAID level. Choose it only if you want the absolute best performance from your disk sub-system. You get highest performance at the cost of more disk space wasted (50&#37 and slightly higher chance of losing your whole array.
• RAID 6 (or 5, though 6 is better) is all about uptime, but it trades performance compared to RAID 10, although it doesn't waste as much disk space (depends on how many disks you put in the array, of course).
• RAID 1 is all about uptime, with no performance penalty (or gain), but has 50% disk space wasted.
• RAID 0 is all about performance, but is the most risky.

Of course, SSDs make all of the above talk about performance moot, as a single (non-shitty) SSD will smoke even a 15k SAS RAID 10 array of anything close to the same $$$ cost. Also your concern about fragmentation is a complete non-issue with SSDs of any kind.

Personally, for a game dev workstation, I would recommend you look at getting two of the biggest RevoDrives (X3 generation) you can afford, and configuring them in RAID 1 via your motherboard which you already have experience with. Leave your OS & Apps on your boot SSD and store everything else on the RevoDrive(s). If one of the RevoDrives fails, replace it. You can even continue working with a single RevoDrive while waiting for the replacement, albeit at slightly increased risk. If you don't like the idea of going PCIe, don't have the PCIe slots, or are anti-OCZ then just RAID 1 the biggest SSDs you can afford and skip the complex RAID BS. The reason to go with RevoDrives is they take performance to the next level even above SSDs.

Lastly, look at getting a BlacX or equivalent, or a case with it built-in (just bought one of these and I *love* it) and running regular backups to a 2TB drive you can rotate off-site.