What's the big deal about RAID 0?

[dj4005]

I've been following the messages here for a while. It seems like every time that someone posts a message about RAID 0, someone pipes in with a negative comment. A quickie search for "RAID 0" turned these up:

2x40gig drives in RAID 0 would give you better transfer rates, medium seek times, but low data reliability

Although SCSI raid 0 is very fast, it's also very unsafe. The failure of just one drive will result in all data in an array being lost.

I'd go SCSI since raid 0 has a much bigger failure rate.

Basically, IMNSHO, raid 0 on an IDE controller is a recipe for disaster.

with raid 0 you live on the edge



Just what is the big deal, people??? Why do people consider RAID 0 such a big risk? There is no redundancy as with other forms of RAID, but the vast majority of the world using non-RAID storage don't have redundancy. If the loss of data is that scary, why aren't you doing backups? There is a mathematical risk involving the number of components, but I don't see anyone suggesting that we return the days of the 8088 as it was less complex than the processors of today.

RAID isn't for everyone. Nor is networking, the Internet, or computers for that matter.

All that said - could someone PLEASE explain to me what the big deal is about RAID 0?

 

[Superwormy]

The problem with RAID 0 is that you have a bigger chance of losing data. You now have TWO hard drives each with their own chance of failure instead of just one. Personally, I'd rather have the minimum chance possible that I'm gonna lose that data, if I had the money to buy a nice tape backup, or to hook up a RAID 5 array... I woudl in a second.

Thing is, I feel that for the added risk of losing data, the benefits of RAID really just arn't worth it, it offers very little benefit in real world applications (aside from servers and video editing or something of that nature)

Probably the biggest problem is just that like 90% of people are idiots, and either swear the lives for RAID or against it, and will never chance their minds cause thats just the way they are.

 

[Yossarian]

I figure if someone's smart enough to setup a RAID array, they're smart enough to backup regularly. I don't see it as a problem if you know the risks involved.

 

[dj4005]

Still - this doesn't explain the anti-RAID 0 sentiments.

Doing backups just isn't that big a deal. There are any number of ways to do it from floppy to tape to CD to another HD. It's just NOT that big a deal.

If you don't trust a drive, why in the world you would you trust your data to it in the first place?

Sure, there are mathematical probabilities the the failure of ANY component. But have you actually looked at the MTBF numbers of today's drives? They are anywhere from hundreds to thousands of times more reliable than drives of a decade ago.

Yes - hard drives can die. But I've lost FAR more data over the years to flakey applications, wildcard deletions in the wrong folder and formatting the wrong drive than I have to actual drive failure. And I've been through a LOT of drives over the years.

 

[Yossarian]

Well you're kind of arguing against "them" so I don't know what you expect to get out of this.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I run IDE Raid 0. One drive dies? No big deal. Everything important is archived to another drive (not at the same time when data is written to the raid array, just when i feel like backing it up). Faster? I dunno, I can always pretend it is

As long as you have your important stuff on another drive or on disk, you don't really have anything to lose (although some argue that the overhead times with Raid 0 make it slower)

 

[Ionizer86]

There's nothing wrong with RAID 0. Many comp users, like me, only have one HDD, and everything is working well. I mean, HDDs aren't supposed to die within 3 yrs (my old WD 3.2gb died after 3yrs + a few months) unless the HDD is a Deathstar 75gxp (or sometimes Deathstar 60gxp's also die).

If one's mobo has a RAID controller and one has two of the same HDD, I'd say go for it! (again, assuming the HDDs aren't Deathstar 60gxp or 75gxp drives).

 

[JellyBaby]

The "doubly unreliable" argument is kind of lame. If you backup regularly (you do this, right?) what's the problem?

I have heard some mobo raid controllers are rather flakey. Perhaps that's also part of the "bad rep" for raid 0.

 

[dj4005]

Actually, I DO have the dreaded IBM GX-75 drives running my RAID 0. When first heard about the drive failures a year ago, I picked up a third one. The rationale was that should one drive die, I'd have another one on hand and ready to go. Since then, I've been using for backups. It's mounted in one of those little universal docking kits so that I can do backups, then store it off the PC in case of theft. As long as I keep less that 50% of the RAID free, I'm good to go.

In 13 months, it's survived 24/7 operation along with a 3 month ordeal of installing XP and movement to a new motherboard(the problem was NOT the drives - it was unsigned drivers on my Korean sound card).

My usage includes editing 1-gig sound files (where the RAID REALLY flies) as well as techical stock analysis (thousands of little bitty files - where I probably see NO benefit) and everything in between.

For me, the only reason to ever dump RAID 0 would be to go to RAID 5.

I guess the thing that bothers me is reading all the comments trying to scare off those people who might benefit. You certainly don't see the equivalent from people who over-clock.

 

[SnoopyDog]

Yep I get your drift dj4005

I just bought a new MB changing from ASUS to SOYO DRAGON + with onboard RAID controller. This was also a change from INTEL to ATHLON. But enough of that. No flaming please

I am also the happy owner of the IBM GX-75 drives. I have 2x 30GB, and yes, I have been through one RTD (return to dealer), just when I bought it DOA. But since then I have had NO problems with them at all. Accutually I am very happy with them.

I just need to go out and get a decent HD for my backup and of I go onto the RAID road.

I just whant to show my appriciation to this thread keeping it clean , there are way to many of these threads where people are flaming each other just because they have another oppinion on lets say, INTEL vs ATHLON or RAID vs NO RAID.

Keep up this good thread, if all threads could be like this one, it would always be a pleasure to read the forums.
You can be sure that in ALL the threads with more than 15-20 replies you will ALLWAYS see people flaming eachothers.

Keep this up.....


SnoopyDog

P.S My Danish are better

 

[SnoopyDog]

UPS!! Just saw that I need to change my system specs.


DONE

 

[boyRacer]

Whats wrong with RAID 0s reliability? I dont think the MTBF actually doubles because you now have two drives... doesnt it stay the same? If it fails... then it fails just like a single drive.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

Lets assume that 1/10000 drives will fail.

All that you do by using RAID 0 is change that to 2/10000.

If you bought a drive that was going to fail, it would have failed wether you put it in a RAID configuration or not - I don't see what the big deal is either.

 

[woolmilk]

> Whats wrong with RAID 0s reliability? I dont think the MTBF actually doubles because you now have two drives... doesnt it stay the same? If it fails... then it fails just like a single drive.

MeanTimeBetweenFailure says it. If you have 3 years MTBF, then you have a 50% that your drive crashes after 3 years.
if you take 2 drives, you have a chance of 75% after 3 years, or 50% after 1.5 years, that your raid is lost because one of the 2 drives crashes.
if you take 4 drives, you have a chance of 94% that your raid is not running 3 years or 50% that it will crash during the next 3/4 year !!!

i m running a raid0 with 2 disks by myself with another HD for occasional backups. i would definitely not recommend using more than 2 drives for raid0. everything above should be done with raid5.


ed: /bold

 

[cbuchach]

Well, I have been running a RAID 0 array for over a year now, first with two 45GB 75GXP's and now with two 60GB 60GXP's. Yes, both the 75GXP's had to be replaced but I didn't end up losing any data.

I guess I just want to comment on the increased performance of RAID 0. In addition to the RAID array, I have a 60GB 120GXP which I use for backups. On one occasion I wanted to try different stripe sizes on the array, so I ghosted my system over to the single 120GXP and ran Windows and everything from there for a few days. To be honest, I wasn't expecting any noticable performance difference between the two storage systems as the 120GXP's are very fast hard drives. Boy was I wrong!!! Booting and program loading was very much noticably slower.

As for data loss, with a single drive config or a RAID array, there is no excuse for not backing up. Any data that you cannot afford or want to lose should be backed up. It's cheap and easy; just buy a cheap hard drive and back up to that every so often--easy.

 

[Shaorinor]

Can just image what's on the array with Norton Ghost, no?

 

[cbuchach]

Yes, you can ghost a RAID array to a single drive.

 

[SnoopyDog]

How is that done??

Ghosting a array to a single drive.......

 

[cbuchach]

Just make a Norton Ghost boot disk, boot your system and follow the menu system to image one hard drive onto another. The RAID array functions as one disk and is seen as such by Ghost. Thus it is the same process as imaging any hard disk.

You would need a minumum of three hard disks, as you of course can't image the RAID array onto one of the hard disks in the array.

 

[SnoopyDog]

got yah...

Cheers..