RAID Questions

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Jz1397-5, Jan 16, 2003.

  1. Jz1397-5

    Jz1397-5 XP Bad Ass

    Messages:
    1,278
    Location:
    Philadelphia PA
    right now i am in the config below. i was wondering if you all thought that RAID was that much faster that i should use it. Also, i want to keep some data seperate from others (meaning on a seperate drive) should i just create a partition on the array?
     
  2. Taurus

    Taurus hardware monkey

    Messages:
    3,206
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    sure, it can be noticeably faster. but it's also noticeably less reliable. something like a system crash or power outage can cause the array to become corrupted and you won't be able to get anything on it back. it can also happen on any random boot up.

    so, get a 3rd hd and store anything important on it. it might also be smart to make that drive c: and keep your os on it.. so if the array goes kaput, you won't have to reformat.
     
  3. raid was created for a purpose, mostly for data on servers. to either protect it from loss(raid 1 or 5) or increase read/write speed(raid 0) on a heavily used file machine. now that they're putting it on motherboards everyone want to use it. unless you have a true need for it why introduce more things that can go wrong with your 'puter just for the sake of saying it has it.

    unless you have crucial data you cant bear to loose and are to lazy to back up by other means, or have say a web, email or database server that gets alot of traffic and read/writes heavily i can't see why everyone has to have it. but thats me, i don't like wasting money. do you really access your drive enough that you would notice a big difference over ata133 speed anyway(raid 0)? and raid 1(mirroring) to protect data loss, actually can be slower because your writing twice for each write.....(also depends on if its true hardware raid or done with software)

    i myself have a file server, hooked to network and web, with a raid setup (5 drives, one for OS and 4 in raid 5 for data) because i have some 50-60 gig of files i don't want to loose and need access to from anywhere. but it was built for a purpose. if i didn't always need access to it i would just archive it to Cd's and such(which is also done just in-case server goes)

    my biggest part my building computers for others is to ask what they want it for and then council on what they must/should have and what they don't need so theres no waste of money or creation of future problems you don't need.
    after that if you still want it i will more than happily help.:happy:
     
  4. Luna64

    Luna64 Guest

    I don't really want to use RAID 0, but I also see no other way to join two 120 gig HD's.

    I just added some cooling to the drives so I guess they should be good to go for some time :)
     
  5. why do they need to be joined?(in one big drive i'm guessing) its still drive space, even if its on another letter........

    the os cant be on it but all other disks/partitions can be set up as a dynamic disk...... then each added one can become part of it making it bigger but again that would be best on a server where everyone writes to a network drive. so you can keep making it bigger without the users knowing. but loose one, loose data on them all.......
     
  6. Jz1397-5

    Jz1397-5 XP Bad Ass

    Messages:
    1,278
    Location:
    Philadelphia PA
    that sounds good, but how do i have a disk seperate from the rest of the array?
     
  7. use the original controller or just dont include it in the setup. the raid controller doesnt have to have all the disks connected to it in the array
    some controllers can support multiple arrays
     
  8. Grymblayd

    Grymblayd Guest

    This has been a good read !

    When you speak of the array becoming corrupted ...all that means is that I have to reconfigure the array right? My HDDs are still O.K.?
     
  9. sure, as long as its not a bad drive that caused it some other type of damage to it.
     
  10. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    But all the data will be lost forever.
     
  11. Jz1397-5

    Jz1397-5 XP Bad Ass

    Messages:
    1,278
    Location:
    Philadelphia PA
    I am going to set up an array for the hell of it. i could always use the experience. i have another system so i don't mind about my main rig. my primary concern was that i have 100GB of personal and business informatuon that i don't want to loose.
     
  12. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    Don't put that on the array then! :)
    Btw, when you set up the array, all previous data on the drives will be lost.
     
  13. Jz1397-5

    Jz1397-5 XP Bad Ass

    Messages:
    1,278
    Location:
    Philadelphia PA
    i know, i 've been reading around :D
     
  14. Grymblayd

    Grymblayd Guest

    I know that if I run the OS on the array and I have a failure that I am looking at a long process of putting it all back together .....
    but what are the advantages of having the OS on the array ... speaking of course from a Raid 0 , 0+1 , 1+0 standpoint ( speed being the ruling factor). also does ghosting work with the array ( especially regarding making the re-installation of the OS to the array.

    I am just about ready to do this ..I have many back-ups...and I will probably experiment with many different configs...it's just nice to know what I might expect.

    So far my only experience with RAID is the roach killer!
     
  15. Luna64

    Luna64 Guest

    People say that if the array is corrupt, the data is lost forever.

    But isn't it possible to use file recovery software to scan the drives ?

    I just read through some stuff and it sounded like it was possible.

    Like with a normal hard drive, even if the data is lost it can still be recoverd through file recovery software.
     
  16. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    No I really don't think so. Maybe if it's just a software crash and the array is still intact. Then you could recover some data. But if a disk gives up or the array breaks in some other way, you're toast. The data will still be there, you just can't puzzle it back together.

    Grymblayd: The OS on a RAID 0 array will give you better speed (naturally). RAID 1+0 requires 4 disks (cen be done with 3, but not good) so that's often ruled out for home users. Ghosting should work as long as Ghost supports the RAID controller.
     
  17. Grymblayd

    Grymblayd Guest

    Thanks for the reply ...I am going to try on 0+1 for size ...as that is what my controller supports ( after doing some reading however I have come to believe that 1+0 is better fault tolerance-wise ) Staples recently had a sale on Maxtor 80 Gig ATA133 HDDs for $109 US ( normally $139) I thought that to be quite a bargain and picked up a few . I just repartitioned my external drive to include FAT & FAT 32 as well as my usual NTFS...when I bring it to my friends houses to help them back-up, we could never fing a drive as OSes using FAT and FAT32 do not notice NTFS.( I hope that I worded that correctly) Anyhow I needed to make about 4 FAT partitions as they needed to be under 2 Gig. ........Excuse me, I digress.....RAID .....My case will way a ton.


    Grym ( and Replying Always In Digital ) blayd
     
  18. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    Yes, RAID 0+1 has better fault tolerance since it's a stripe combined with a mirror. With 4 80 Gigs you'll get one big 160 Gig drive with RAID 0+1.

    Why on earth do you want small <2 Gig FAT partitions??
     
  19. Grymblayd

    Grymblayd Guest

    Good question !

    I forgot that Fat32 and Fat were friendly and I just wanted to insure compatability between the drives I transfer to and from.
    With the amount of space that I have It was no big sacrifice.

    In my post I stated that I thought 1+0 had more fault tolerance,
    you stated that 0+1 had more.
    I went back to try and find where I first saw the comparisons of both configurations and I found something else which now eases my mind ( for which I am glad as I have already purchased the 0+1 contoller) Here is the link [http://bizforums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,,0xfaf1911284f5d5118ff40090279cd0f9,00.html

    What it comes down to in the end between 1+0 and 0+1 are the chances of array failure and the recovery of the array ...in that regard 1+0 wins . For my purposes though 0+1 is just fine.

    Grym ( thru no fault of my own ) blayd
     
  20. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    That link is broken. I fixed it but I can't access the server. Damn SQL virus still bugging the net. :mad:

    Anyway, I was under the impression that RAID 0+1 and 1+0 was pretty much the same. I meant that RAID 0+1 was safer than RAID 0. Doing some thinking it seems that a mirrored stripe would be safer than a striped mirror. But I can' be sure. :) They should be pretty much equally safe.

    I'll try to read that page if I can access it. :)

    Oh any if you want to, you can get a RAID controller that can do RAID 5. Safer and more space efficient than RAID 0+1.