PDA

View Full Version : To RAID or not to RAID?


DoomUK
08-30-05, 07:05 PM
Well, as you can see in my sig I have a 180GB ATA-100 HDD. I'm am going to purchase a second PATA drive (200GB for around 60: bargain) for my need of additional storage space.

Now, there seems to be some disagreement on the usefullness of RAID, specifically RAID 0. Some say that it is unreliable (prone to crashes, etc), and that one should use both/all HDD's individually for seperate storage. Thus my question is: Do you guys think I should bother with a RAID 0 setup? If I were to invest in two or more 10,000 RPM SATA's, would RAID be worth it (stupid question, but would there be a loss of bandwidth with the ageing PATA interface in a RAID 0 setup)?

Amuro
08-31-05, 08:21 AM
Yes, it is indeed risky to run RAID 0. What raid 0 does is stripe your data across multiple disks, which increases your lilelyhood of running into problems. When data is written to a raid 0 volume, it is written to the first sector on the first disk, and then goes to the first sector on the second, etc. When one drive fails, since you have the single file spanned across several disks, you lose everything. And since raid 0 helps performance very little, it's pretty much worthless.

saturnotaku
08-31-05, 08:25 AM
A good serial ATA hard drive with NCQ support and 16 MB of cache will do you better than a RAID-0 array. I had RAID-0 going with a pair of Western Digital Raptor drives. IMO, the performance wasn't good enough to offset the noise and heat those drives generated.

Ninjaman09
08-31-05, 08:47 AM
I ran my drives in a RAID-0 array for a month or so, then one of them failed. I lost all of my data immediately. There was no performance increase that was noticable either - do yourself a favor and don't RAID your drives (unless it's RAID-1).

By the way drop the extra cash and get an SATA drive. You will notice a difference between PATA and SATA. With the kind of money you had to spend on your other system components I'm surprised you're worried about spending an extra 40 bucks or so. :)

RealLifePixelShader
08-31-05, 10:55 AM
Raid 0+1

wheeljack12
08-31-05, 01:37 PM
Amoolman has the ticket for redundancy. Two ways of seeing it here. If you are backing up your data to a place other than your hard drive (as most of us are supposed to by rule of thumb), than a raid array isn't so bad. If you are worried about the lost time in reinstalling the OS and apps, then this is where the two options come in. One, image your OS and app raid array with a program like norton ghost. The second is amoolman's thoughts. Which is four drives in which two are the raid 0 array and then two are the mirror of the raid 0. Thus, you have raid 0's speed and raid 1's data backup of the whole hard drive. 0+1 (also called Raid 10) works a little slower than raid 0 because it periodically saves to the mirror hard drives.

wheeljack12
08-31-05, 01:37 PM
Amoolman has the ticket for redundancy. Two ways of seeing it here. If you are backing up your data to a place other than your hard drive (as most of us are supposed to by rule of thumb), than a raid array isn't so bad. If you are worried about the lost time in reinstalling the OS and apps, then this is where the two options come in. One, image your OS and app raid array with a program like norton ghost. The second is amoolman's thoughts. Which is four drives in which two are the raid 0 array and then two are the mirror of the raid 0. Thus, you have raid 0's speed and raid 1's data backup of the whole hard drive. 0+1 (also called Raid 10) works a little slower than raid 0 because it periodically saves to the mirror hard drives.

wheeljack12
08-31-05, 01:37 PM
Amoolman has the ticket for redundancy. Two ways of seeing it here. If you are backing up your data to a place other than your hard drive (as most of us are supposed to by rule of thumb), than a raid array isn't so bad. If you are worried about the lost time in reinstalling the OS and apps, then this is where the two options come in. One, image your OS and app raid array with a program like norton ghost. The second is amoolman's thoughts. Which is four drives in which two are the raid 0 array and then two are the mirror of the raid 0. Thus, you have raid 0's speed and raid 1's data backup of the whole hard drive. 0+1 (also called Raid 10) works a little slower than raid 0 because it periodically saves to the mirror hard drives.

wheeljack12
08-31-05, 01:40 PM
don't know how I replied three times. I only click on the reply once and the submit reply once.

seeker010
08-31-05, 02:59 PM
Amoolman has the ticket for redundancy. Two ways of seeing it here. If you are backing up your data to a place other than your hard drive (as most of us are supposed to by rule of thumb), than a raid array isn't so bad. If you are worried about the lost time in reinstalling the OS and apps, then this is where the two options come in. One, image your OS and app raid array with a program like norton ghost. The second is amoolman's thoughts. Which is four drives in which two are the raid 0 array and then two are the mirror of the raid 0. Thus, you have raid 0's speed and raid 1's data backup of the whole hard drive. 0+1 (also called Raid 10) works a little slower than raid 0 because it periodically saves to the mirror hard drives.
ot: raid 10 is a lot more fault tolerant than raid 0+1, and as such usually requires a dedicated (and expensive) hardware controller.

jAkUp
08-31-05, 03:05 PM
don't know how I replied three times. I only click on the reply once and the submit reply once.

The first reply was on the Stripe, the other replies were on the Raid1 backup :p

ENU291
08-31-05, 05:13 PM
The first reply was on the Stripe, the other replies were on the Raid1 backup :p

Hahaha... Well back in the day when hard drives were slower running a RAID 0 array resulted in a noticable speed improvement but nowadays it's really not worth it. A modern 16MB Cache NCQ SATA hard drive is kicking out an average read of about 50mbs with burst maxing out the SATA bus. If you have some money to burn then pick up a 75G Raptor as your primary Windows drive and a nice Hitachi 300G SATA for your storage duties!! ;)

DoomUK
08-31-05, 05:34 PM
Thanks for the input guys. I think I'll just use a second drive without any RAID setup.

Yes, I'm contemplating about whether to get a SATA or not. However, my primary goal is simply for additional storage, the fractional performance increase I'd get with a decent SATA drive is negligable (indeed, unless I get a 10,000RPM drive that is). I can't see there being a huge reduction in loading times etc with a 150MB/s interface as oposed to a 100MB/s interface, correct me if I'm wrong however.

saweetnesstrev
08-31-05, 09:43 PM
I would get 2 new hitachi 250 gig drives for 150 bucks or western digital ones sata II with 16 meg cache and raid 0-1 both of em.

seeker010
08-31-05, 10:32 PM
no one mentioned raid 5?

http://members.home.nl/rvandesanden/raid3.html