RAID

[KamiQuazi]

I was wondering what most of the people on this site liked before i decided on hard drives

[atomizer]

i think your poll will be pretty much useless to you because the best RAID config depends completely on what you want to accomplish and you didn't explain that.

if raw speed is more important to you than safeguarding your data, then RAID 0 might be for you. just remember, if you trash one drive, you lose everything! personally, i have my OS and all programs on a 2 disk, RAID 0 array. all my personal data is on a separate SATA drive and all data back-ups and other storage are on yet another SATA drive. to further increase speed (and privacy), i store a bunch of temp files on a RAM drive. this setup give me a very fast system, especially with a pile of other tweaks and, of course, nLite

Edited July 8, 2005 by atomizer

[lvlolvlo]

What no RAID 5?

[Lost Soul]

i wish i could answer this ,, but i wanna go raid setup my self and i dont know to much other then a few articles that ive read,, but for me i think id go raid 0 because i want the speed ..

but heres a question what type of real speed gain can you get from a raid setup in 0 setting ?

[atomizer]

...but heres a question what type of real speed gain can you get from a raid setup in 0 setting ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

someone more knoledgable than i can provide a better answer, but here's my take...

i have my OS and all programs on a RAID 0 array. the speed increase is SIGNIFICANT! boot time is cut way down. it's not something that you need some special software to measure -- you'll really FEEL the difference! with a RAID 0 array, spread over 2 disks, you'll have 1/2 of your data on one disk and 1/2 on the other. when you call up a program (for instance), 1/2 of it is loading at 7200 RPM (for example) from 1 drive and the other 1/2 is loading at 7200 RPM from the other drive. in theory, the loading is twice as fast. in reality, it doesn't quite work that way, but, as i said, the speed increase is VERY noticeable. the best speed you can get is always subject to whatever the bottleneck in your system is. this may be your RAM, front-side-bus, hardware, etc., etc.. there's a lot of variables.

again i'll provide a word of caution however...

if, in a RAID 0 configuration, you lose 1 drive (hard drive failier), then the data on the other dirve is completly useless (lose 1, lose all). obviously this is so because each chunk of data is split among 2 or more drives.

[KamiQuazi]

if u get the speed of 0, y wouldn't u get the same speed of 1 (since the data is in two locations, in a whole piece)... that is just my wonder....

[atomizer]

if u get the speed of 0, y wouldn't u get the same speed of 1 (since the data is in two locations, in a whole piece)... that is just my wonder....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not exactly sure what you're asking...

if you're asking why you can't get the same speed from 1 disk on which data is divided into more than 1 chunk, then my answer would be that, no matter how many parts the data is divided into (and, actually, the more parts, the slower the transfer will be), there is only so many heads to read and write data and the that 1 disk spins at only 7200 RPM (as example). with 2 disks, you have 2 drives spinning at 7200 and TWICE the number of heads to read/write. make sense?

i suppose another way you could compare a single disk to a 2 disk, RAID 0 array, is to think of it as 1 disk spinning at 14,400 RPM!

Edited July 10, 2005 by atomizer

[KamiQuazi]

Is there a way to set up 2 drives in a 1 config where it acts like a 0 config? Where you would get the best of both? Data security and speed?

[atomizer]

Is there a way to set up 2 drives in a 1 config where it acts like a 0 config? Where you would get the best of both? Data security and speed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, now you want your cake and to eat it too

i was going to say no, this is not possible, but then i did a quick search to refresh myself and found out that it is possible... sort of

RAID levels

[Lost Soul]

hmm this is all very interesting,, lets say 100 ppl hada asetup of raid 0, whats the ratio of ppl getting burnt by a bad mishap, to the ppl with out any probs ?

i like to look at the odds, it helps me think better lol..

[KamiQuazi]

*EDITED* I doubled posted and the second one was better... lol.... *EDITED*

Edited July 10, 2005 by lostincyberspace2007

[KamiQuazi]

Found this yesterday (well now it is yesterday.. lol) and it might help some people...

[maxamoto]

IDE/SATA RAID is useless. It just adds 10 seconds to your boot time.

[KamiQuazi]

i don't care about boot-time i want overall performace...

[atomizer]

hmm this is all very interesting,, lets say 100 ppl hada asetup of raid 0, whats the ratio of ppl getting burnt by a bad mishap, to the ppl with out any probs ?

i'd say that depends, at least in part, on the quality of the hardware you purchase. personally, i always try to buy what i believe to be high quality, name brand drives. however, i'd also say that the failure rate is far less important in a RAID 0 array as long as you either a), don't store important data on it or B), back up data to another drive if you do. since i only run the OS and programs on my RAID 0 array, i'm not overly concerned if i lose a drive since it's easy to just reinstall. i'm also new to RAID though, so i have not had any failures. i'm using the relatively new WD, 10K RPM raptors in my array which, so far, i like very much. they are very fast and very quiet.

i don't care about boot-time i want overall performace

the faster boot time is because data is read much faster from the drives -- something which carries over to ALL times, not just boot.

IDE/SATA RAID is useless. It just adds 10 seconds to your boot time

in my case (can't speak for anyone else), boot time BEFORE the OS loads (POST) is a little longer because of BIOS and my RAID config utility loading and detecting the drives. after POST, everything is faster! that's an awful small price to pay for substantially increased performance during the rest of your (99+%) up time, unless you're planning on rebooting 300 times a day :/

Edited July 10, 2005 by atomizer