what exactly is RAID?

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0
a way you can arrange your hard drives for performance, or redundancy, or both. depending on what you are looking for, what your system will support, and how many hard drives you have.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: ddviper
how many drives do u need to run RAID 0+1 or 10?

4.

RAID = Redundant Array of Independent/Inexpensive Disks.

Although SCSI drives are not inexpensive, and RAID 0 has no redundancy. :confused:
 

imverygifted

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2004
1,368
0
0
in short its just making multiple hard drives work together to make a more efficient working environment
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: ddviper
how many drives do u need to run RAID 0+1 or 10?

4.

RAID = Redundant Array of Independent/Inexpensive Disks.

Although SCSI drives are not inexpensive, and RAID 0 has no redundancy. :confused:


No, RAID0+1 only needs 3 discs. No clue about RAID10.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Although SCSI drives are not inexpensive, and RAID 0 has no redundancy.

Point taken, however, "inexpensive" is a relative term. To an enterprise, a $500 SCSI HD is not expensive if it contains data that is critcal to the needs of the business and would cost them comsiderably more to replicate if lost.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: twitchee2
so it just makes lets say 4 HDDS work as one?


Ugh. Nope not that simple. Only 4 discs in a RAID0 config would do that. Problem with RAID0 is that there is no "R" (redundancy). Effectively, RAID0 is faster to write/read because the whole process is split between N discs in your array. However, if you had a RAID0+1 config (striping + mirroring) and one of your discs failed you could restore your data on all discs. The performance gains with RAID are not really the reason to run RAID. Afterall the first word here is Redundant. Its meant to maintain data integrity.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: dartworth
Just take a look @ the link I post...


Interesting, i have read that RAID 0+1 can be inplemeted with 3 discs (striping x2, mirror x1 size of x2 combined). Is this true or were my sources wrong?
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Can... not... resist....

It is also a brand of nerve toxins sold in a container that is used to change insects from a moving to permanently unmoving state. grins, ducks, runs away...
 

VTrider

Golden Member
Nov 21, 1999
1,358
0
0
I'm just just wondering when all the anti-raid "don't do RAID 0" nazis will start posting :roll:
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: dartworth
Just take a look @ the link I post...


Interesting, i have read that RAID 0+1 can be inplemeted with 3 discs (striping x2, mirror x1 size of x2 combined). Is this true or were my sources wrong?

I suppose you could do this (if the controller supports it!), but it would almost totally negate the performance benefits (although you would still have redundancy for a single drive failure).

That would be a VERY unusual RAID0+1 setup.
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: D1gger
Originally posted by: dartworth
RAID Level 0+1 requires a minimum of 4 drives to implement

Looks like three needed for Raid 0+1 to me.

Raid 0+1

That is not the way that RAID0+1 is implemented on most controllers. It is usually set up as a RAID0 across two 2-disk RAID1s.