• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

who uses raid?

C

csmaster2005

Senior member
just curious, who has a raid setup, and what do you use it for? (to mirror a drive incase 1 fails, and thus you have a backup, or do you use it to combine 2 hd's into 1 so you have faster responses?)

I don't know too much about raid, but was somewhat curious to know.

Also, is the benefit of combining 2 drives into 1 THAT noticeable speed wise?

Do you use software raid (if so, which?) or hardware raid?
thanks!
 
what's a glitterati? 😉
What do you use to run the raid? The built in one on windows? Do you knows any benefits?
Also, that's the one where 2 drives act as 1, and data is split between the two correct?
 
I have an Areca ARC-1220 PCIe RAID controller with 4-400gb WD RE2 hds in RAID 5 and two WD 150gb Raptors in RAID 0. RAID 0 is for games & scratch, and RAID 5 is for storage and backup.
 
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Better performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage
 
Oh, and I always use Hardware raid, there is a slight but noticable CPU overhead from software raid. Use software only if you are strapped for cash
 
I use almost the same setup as Fullmetal Chocobo. Areca 1220 with 2x 74GB Raptors in RAID-0 (boot drive - applications and games) and 3x 500GB Seagates in RAID 5 (storage and backup).

RadiclDreamer has the RAID comparisons on the money.

RAID 0 can get you speedy transfers, especially with 3 or more drives, but access times are a little slower than with a single drive. You also multiply your risk of failure by the number of drives in the array.

I put RAID 1 in my dad's system. He's by no means a power user, but is fearful of a drive failure.

RAID 5 is more expensive to implement (minimum 3 drives, you lose the storage space of 1 drive in the array) but usually has faster read speeds that a single drive or RAID 1.

If you're running your own private data center 😛, the Areca cards can do RAID 6. Think of it like RAID 5, but with 2 parity stripes. You lose the space of 2 drives in the array, but you can suffer 2 simultaneous drive failures without data loss.
 
raid0 is pretty much worthless, there are very negligible speed gains.

I run raid, but I manage servers, so /shrug.

I do run some limited software raid at home, but it's on linux, so S/W raid is actually faster then some hardware raid, and works great. It's also nice, as I don't have to dedicate full drives to my software raid, only partitions.
 
I'm running RAID and I'm gonna stop once I can get my hands on some of the new SATA drives that can match or beat the performance of the Raptor. The extra performance most of the time is just not necessary, and RAID is a pain in the ass to deal with.
 
nweaver - ok being able to set what partitions to raid is really useful, I didnt know that before. What do you use your raid for exactly?

Also, anyone know any good or decent software raid's?
 
I use a RAID 1 for storage, then back up all critical files (pics, movies, etc..) to a couple external sources and a spare drive I use in the system for stuff.
 
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.
Click to expand...

DVD media sucks, especially with hd's being so damn cheap these days.
 
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage
Click to expand...

Just a correction
 
I keep my data on a RAID 1 array of two 120s. Then I clone that weekly to an external 120. Seems fairly redundant and has not been a problem.
 
i use 2 x 150gb raptors in raid 0 for total of 300gb of storage for my Vista 32-bit OS and all my programs. media files are stored on seperate single seagate 7200.10 drive
 
Originally posted by: Cutthroat
I'm running RAID and I'm gonna stop once I can get my hands on some of the new SATA drives that can match or beat the performance of the Raptor. The extra performance most of the time is just not necessary, and RAID is a pain in the ass to deal with.
Click to expand...

only faster rpm drives will meet the performance of the raptor in the seek times area, but there are quite a few drives that beat it in str and have been for some time
 
I have a software RAID5 on an SIL3114 controller that just went tits-up today. 🙁


Repeat after me: FAKERAID SUCKS! FAKERAID SUCKS! ...


It was in the middle of a copy job, and I got a "Delayed Write Failed" message (first one ever), and then the Raid Mgmt software said that ports 1 and 2 had a SCSI error, and both became orpans, even though it showed all my drives as "healthy".

So for no reason that I can fathom, I had an error and had two drives drop out.

Thankfully, I rebooted and they came back in degraded mode, and then port 1 dropped out again during the rebuild. So I rebooted again, and now it has been rebuilding overnight. Hopefully the filesystem (NTFS) isn't too corrupted.



I think that hardware RAID is more reliable, due to one simple fact - with a closed hardware system, the variables can be more tightly controlled, and errors weeded out more diligently. With a software RAID, the storage subsystem becomes opened up to all of Windows' strangeness and misery. There are simply more uncontrolled external variables, which makes it more unreliable.
 
Originally posted by: Baloo
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage
Click to expand...

Just a correction
Click to expand...

I disagree. RAID 5 performance is on par with my RAID 0 array on my controller in benchmarks.

Benchmarked using HD T une 2.53:

boot -- 74gb Raptor on motherboard (P5N32-E SLI Plus)

games -- 2x150gb Raptors (RAID 0) on Areca ARC-1220

storage -- 4x400gb WD RE2 (RAID 5) on Areca ARC-1220
 
Originally posted by: csmaster2005
nweaver - ok being able to set what partitions to raid is really useful, I didnt know that before. What do you use your raid for exactly?

Also, anyone know any good or decent software raid's?
Click to expand...

I use Linux, and I have my /home partitions on a raid 1 between 2 disks.

Linux md raid is the best imho.
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.
Click to expand...

repeat after me

Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
Originally posted by: Baloo
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage
Click to expand...

Just a correction
Click to expand...

I disagree. RAID 5 performance is on par with my RAID 0 array on my controller in benchmarks.

Benchmarked using HD T une 2.53:

boot -- 74gb Raptor on motherboard (P5N32-E SLI Plus)

games -- 2x150gb Raptors (RAID 0) on Areca ARC-1220

storage -- 4x400gb WD RE2 (RAID 5) on Areca ARC-1220
Click to expand...

Traditionally, RAID 5 has slower writes, but faster reads then a single disk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top