PDA

View Full Version : To RAID or Not To RAID


Pages : [1] 2

SLippe
06-14-06, 08:41 AM
Okay, I just bought a second WD SATA2 250GB HDD. I am thinking of doing a RAID 0 with them. To do this, would I have to do a fresh install? Even so, I may do it. Since they are both the same drive, I won't lose any space and I should have quite the increase of performance, from what I've read.

Anyways...

Is there a real benefit of doing a RAID 0 or should I just install the second one as like the D: drive or whatever?

Your opinion, please.

evilghost
06-14-06, 09:26 AM
Striping does increase speed however you're more likely to encounter a disaster; if one drive dies the stripe is dead and data has been lost. There are some high quality RAID cards with an embedded CISC/RISC processor that are designed to handle the parity calculations for RAID-5 producing speeds near RAID-0 but with the added fault tolerance. To do RAID-5 you need at least three drives.

tieros
06-14-06, 10:00 AM
RAID 0 gives you an excellent boost in speed, especially reads, and twice the space, but doubles your chance of data loss on that logical disk due to hardware failure. It's probably not a good idea unless you're backing up your system.

I moved my slow Hitachi 300GB drive to a cheap eSata external housing, and replaced it with a pair of Samsung Spinpoint 250GB drives in RAID 0. I split the array into a 300GB chunk of "stuff I need to backup" and a 200GB chunk of "others". I use Acronis TrueImage to backup the important chunk nightly to the external drive. It took all day to get everything moved around, but it was definitely worth it.

einstein_314
06-14-06, 10:23 AM
I used to run 2 WD 120GB drives in a RAID 0 array and had a 80GB drive for backing stuff up to. I never did encounter any problems with the array (as far as losing data is concerned). I then tried a RAID 1 array with them and used my 80 GB drive as the boot HD and the RAID array as my storage space. That way it backs everything up all the time. Kind of nice. But the speed wasn't where I needed it. So now i'm just running a WD 250GB SataII 16mb as my boot drive, and a 160GB WD drive as my documents and stuff. And then a 120Gb drive in an eSATA external case for backing stuff up to.

I'm thinking of picking up another WD 250GB SATAII 16mb though and making a RAID 0 array again...I will probably do as tieros did and split it into 2 partitions...1 for boot and programs, 1 for "stuff" and then still have my external drive to backup to.


And yes you will need to do a fresh install. If it was a RAID 1 array, you would be able to just clone the original drive (using the RAID setup thingy in the bios) and you'd be set to go. But RAID 0 has to clear the drives first. I'd say go with the RAID 0 array. As long as you backup important stuff to another drive somewhere, it will be fine.

tieros
06-14-06, 11:01 AM
And yes you will need to do a fresh install. If it was a RAID 1 array, you would be able to just clone the original drive (using the RAID setup thingy in the bios) and you'd be set to go. But RAID 0 has to clear the drives first.

I cheated on this part of it :)

Since my old primary drive was being used in the eSata enclosure, I was able to boot off of it. I created the RAID 0 array from BIOS. Then I booted into Windows and ran the nforce driver install again so it would add the RAID driver. The next step was to reboot using the TrueImage CD and copy the partitions from the external drive to the array. Then I selected the RAID array as the boot device, and during the first boot process TrueImage adjusts all the drive letters so they match the old layout.

The only tricky part about it is that Windows would always pick the single drive in the eSata housing as Disk 0, regardless of how I arranged the drives in BIOS. If I turned the power off to the external enclosure and tried to reboot into XP, Vista, or Vista 64, the boot loader would die since the disk numbering was different.

The solution (after everything else was done) was to boot with the external enclosure on, and then convert it from a single drive to a RAID JBOD array. The conversion leaves the drive intact, so I still had my original data in case I ran into problems. It became the second RAID array, so it's disk number changed from 0 to 1, and the RAID 0 array became disk 0, which is what I needed. Now I can boot the machine with the enclosure powered on or off, and the boot loader isn't affected.

That was a lot of typing, but the actual process wasn't that complicated :)

stisoas
06-14-06, 11:03 AM
Okay, I just bought a second WD SATA2 250GB HDD. I am thinking of doing a RAID 0 with them. To do this, would I have to do a fresh install? Even so, I may do it. Since they are both the same drive, I won't lose any space and I should have quite the increase of performance, from what I've read.

Anyways...

Is there a real benefit of doing a RAID 0 or should I just install the second one as like the D: drive or whatever?

Your opinion, please.


no real benefit. dont set any raid0. it's BS for standard use

bugmage
06-14-06, 11:08 AM
I would raid it, just back up now and then

-check out my raid sticky, go to the line at the bottum

saturnotaku
06-14-06, 01:10 PM
I use Acronis TrueImage to backup the important chunk nightly to the external drive. It took all day to get everything moved around, but it was definitely worth it.

Question about this. I only have 1 hard drive in my system. I'd like to add another, preferably an external. If I were to contstruct or buy an external drive that's similar or greater in size than my current 250 GB Seagate, I assume I could use TrueImage to backup the entire contents of that drive to the external unit. In the event of primary drive failure, could I pop the external drive into my case and boot off that? Or, could I simply boot off the external drive so I don't have any down time or have to reinstall Windows and all my applications and games? Would it be easier to run with an internal hard drive? Thanks.

einstein_314
06-14-06, 01:31 PM
Question about this. I only have 1 hard drive in my system. I'd like to add another, preferably an external. If I were to contstruct or buy an external drive that's similar or greater in size than my current 250 GB Seagate, I assume I could use TrueImage to backup the entire contents of that drive to the external unit. In the event of primary drive failure, could I pop the external drive into my case and boot off that? Or, could I simply boot off the external drive so I don't have any down time or have to reinstall Windows and all my applications and games? Would it be easier to run with an internal hard drive? Thanks.
As long as it's an identical copy of your boot drive, you should be able to just boot off the external drive. (I would think so anyways...) I'm pretty sure I can boot off of mine (I've never tried buy I can pick it in the boot order...so I'd assume so) I have a Vantec eSATA enclosure with a WD SATA drive inside. I love the eSATA becuase it's just as fast as if the HD was inside my case but it's external so I can detach it and take it to a different computer :) And it has USB as well so I can use that if I want. My only complaint about the Vantec enclosure I have is when I turn off my computer, it doesn't shut down the external hard drive. And when I flip the switch on the HD enclosure, it doesn't park the HD, it just shuts it off.

einstein_314
06-14-06, 01:32 PM
no real benefit. dont set any raid0. it's BS for standard use
I wouldn't say it's BS for normal use. I noticed a significant reduction in boot time and game loading times. Anything that uses the hard drive will be faster because the hard drive bottle neck is reduced.

Bman212121
06-14-06, 02:11 PM
Same **** different day! You will see a huge increase when you RAID your drives. Loading times will go down, and installs will go much faster. If you move any significant amount of data, you can probably tell the difference.

As for the no redundancy, what is the big deal???? Like you were going to throw the drive in there so that you could keep a copy of the data, you probably bought it to increase the amount of storage you have. So there is no difference between having a single drive that fails, and having a raid 0 that fails. Either way, you should have a backup of anything that is actually important.

I'd totally go for the reinstall, you won't be disappointed.

evilghost
06-14-06, 02:22 PM
So there is no difference between having a single drive that fails, and having a raid 0 that fails.

This is true however you have increased your likelyhood of potential failure by two.

Perhaps consider using RAID 0+1 (Stripe+Mirror), this would require two additional drives (other than what you have).

You'll see the speed benefits of RAID-0 combined with the fault tolerance of RAID-1. 0+1 should be faster than RAID-5.

evilghost
06-14-06, 02:23 PM
Question about this. I only have 1 hard drive in my system. I'd like to add another, preferably an external. If I were to contstruct or buy an external drive that's similar or greater in size than my current 250 GB Seagate, I assume I could use TrueImage to backup the entire contents of that drive to the external unit. In the event of primary drive failure, could I pop the external drive into my case and boot off that? Or, could I simply boot off the external drive so I don't have any down time or have to reinstall Windows and all my applications and games? Would it be easier to run with an internal hard drive? Thanks.

Acronis TrueImage runs on Linux (via a Linux live/bootable CD), shouldn't you look at a Windows based solution? After all, Linux and Linux-based tools are for mouth-breathers ;)

GlowStick
06-14-06, 02:44 PM
Question about this. I only have 1 hard drive in my system. I'd like to add another, preferably an external. If I were to contstruct or buy an external drive that's similar or greater in size than my current 250 GB Seagate, I assume I could use TrueImage to backup the entire contents of that drive to the external unit. In the event of primary drive failure, could I pop the external drive into my case and boot off that? Or, could I simply boot off the external drive so I don't have any down time or have to reinstall Windows and all my applications and games? Would it be easier to run with an internal hard drive? Thanks.
Hm, im useing TrueImage right now and it makes a image file of your hdd, so you cant boot off that hdd unless you dump the image onto a diffrent hdd.

saturnotaku
06-14-06, 02:50 PM
Acronis TrueImage runs on Linux (via a Linux live/bootable CD), shouldn't you look at a Windows based solution? After all, Linux and Linux-based tools are for mouth-breathers ;)

Then perhaps you should breathe a little harder to get some more oxygen to you thinking apparatus.

http://us1.download.acronis.com/pdf/TrueImage9.0_datasheet.en.pdf

I don't know about anyone else, but that sure looks like a Windows-based solution to me. The Linux version is for enterprise. Not quite what I need or am looking to accomplish.

Hm, im useing TrueImage right now and it makes a image file of your hdd, so you cant boot off that hdd unless you dump the image onto a diffrent hdd.

Edit: Thank you, that's exactly what I needed to know.

Redeemed
06-14-06, 05:32 PM
This is true however you have increased your likelyhood of potential failure by two.

Perhaps consider using RAID 0+1 (Stripe+Mirror), this would require two additional drives (other than what you have).

You'll see the speed benefits of RAID-0 combined with the fault tolerance of RAID-1. 0+1 should be faster than RAID-5.


I was under the impression that with RAID 0+1 you only NEEDED to have two drives- not four.

stisoas
06-14-06, 05:49 PM
I wouldn't say it's BS for normal use. I noticed a significant reduction in boot time and game loading times. Anything that uses the hard drive will be faster because the hard drive bottle neck is reduced.



it's useless for standard use/game.

loading time arent shorter. it's a legend. you will get more IO peak , and better linear rea/write.
but in real application like game etc , it doesnt do anything.

people who say that , has in reality , never tested that themselve.

einstein_314
06-14-06, 05:49 PM
I was under the impression that with RAID 0+1 you only NEEDED to have two drives- not four.
Nope, you need 4 drives. 2 to make the first RAID 0 array (stripped) and then another 2 to make another. Then the second array is made a mirror of the first one.

stisoas
06-14-06, 05:50 PM
Same **** different day! You will see a huge increase when you RAID your drives. Loading times will go down, and installs will go much faster. If you move any significant amount of data, you can probably tell the difference.

As for the no redundancy, what is the big deal???? Like you were going to throw the drive in there so that you could keep a copy of the data, you probably bought it to increase the amount of storage you have. So there is no difference between having a single drive that fails, and having a raid 0 that fails. Either way, you should have a backup of anything that is actually important.

I'd totally go for the reinstall, you won't be disappointed.


:rolleyes:. dude dont speak about thing you dont know ;)

einstein_314
06-14-06, 05:53 PM
it's useless for standard use/game.

loading time arent shorter. it's a legend. you will get more IO peak , and better linear rea/write.
but in real application like game etc , it doesnt do anything.

people who say that , has in reality , never tested that themselve.
So I guess the tests I did when I had my RAID 0 array were faked then :rolleyes:

I tested it using Far Cry loading times. I don't have any numbers to show you right now (it's been 2 years since I did the tests and I didnt' keep the piece of paper I wrote it all down on) but there was an improvement. If I remember correctly the array could load the level in about 3/4 the time the single drive could.

So it's my word against yours I guess.

einstein_314
06-14-06, 05:56 PM
:rolleyes:. dude dont speak about thing you dont know ;)
Because obviously you know so much more than the rest of us. Why should we listen to you over him? I'm totally agree with everything Bman212121 said. So I guess we both know nothing :rolleyes: Are you like...the RAID master who chooses to not enlighten us with yon knowledge?

stisoas
06-14-06, 06:00 PM
So I guess the tests I did when I had my RAID 0 array were faked then :rolleyes:

I tested it using Far Cry loading times. I don't have any numbers to show you right now (it's been 2 years since I did the tests and I didnt' keep the piece of paper I wrote it all down on) but there was an improvement. If I remember correctly the array could load the level in about 3/4 the time the single drive could.

So it's my word against yours I guess.

bull****. i did these tes myself. farcry / HLČ/ doom3/ SWG etc...

the raid0 was 5% faster than single hitachi disk. the 3 disk raid0 array was 20% faster than single disk.

a single raptor is 20% faster than single 7200 disk.


edit:oh ? you dont have any numbers ? so strange .... :p

stisoas
06-14-06, 06:01 PM
Because obviously you know so much more than the rest of us. Why should we listen to you over him? I'm totally agree with everything Bman212121 said. So I guess we both know nothing :rolleyes: Are you like...the RAID master who chooses to not enlighten us with yon knowledge?



i know , because i tested MYSELF. with 3 type of disk , and 2 different controlleur (3 with my software raid0 test)

and many people know same thing than me. raid0 for standard use is BULL****.

stop the FUD plz;

stisoas
06-14-06, 06:05 PM
final cut


STOP BULL **** !!!

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2760&p=10

Vik1dk
06-14-06, 06:13 PM
Raid 0 cut my BF2 loading time in half, belive it or not..