An F.B.I. RAID at AnandTech!!!

[silicon demon]

This is the (For Better Information on RAID) thread....which is exactly what i need.

(2) questions. Isn't it true that the RAID 2 configuration has gone the way of the dodo bird? ....meaning RAID 2 is no longer utilized? if so, WHY?

To my knowledge, RAID 2 allows for extremely high transfer rates, and uses a Hamming code for error correction. It is similar to RAID 0 striping, except that it stripes at the bit level rather than the block level. I'd be very interested in using RAID 2 if it's still an industry standard.

Second question: Does anyone out there have any experience with using RAID 0 across more than 2 disks? (3-disk....4-disk RAID 0 configuration?). I understand that the risk of system failure goes up if a disk goes bad, but how much gain in performance can you get by using a multi-disk (i.e., more than 2 disks) RAID 0 config?

I guess i don't care about disk failure "too" much since i Ghost (Norton) quite regularly.

 

[Zap]

To answer your second question, a friend of mine BITD used to have a 4 disk RAID 0 array, using four 60GB 5400RPM drives. I can't say that he noticed much difference, but perhaps it was from the drives being 5400RPM (he was basically using up some spare drives). I think some epople have benchmarked various configurations and pretty much figured out that 2 drives already hits the point of diminishing returns.

 

[silicon demon]

did i post this thread in the wrong forum?

no replies yet ('ceptin you Zaparooni). maybe noone's really using RAID across more than 2 disks?

 

[OatMan]

I noticed a significant difference with a 3 disk stripe using the new single platter seagate 160GB. Problem is that ATA RAID Blows. Simple as that. Power went out with the comp on and killed the raid. It could not be recovered so I couldn't get to my data.

OK thats what I get for striping. Well truth is that I'm from the enterprise world and SCSI RAIDS are vastly differnt.

I've just decieded that mirroring a home machine is silly and RAID just isn't worth it. the NV RAID is particularly crappy in my opinion.

I'd rather just use a raptor and a few cheap large storage drives. Much easier and more robust. And if it does mess up at least I can get to the data. I've rarely been able to re-establish a bolluxed ATA RAID.

In any case to answer what I think your asking, RAID 0 + 1 kinda replaces RAID 2, and remember these are consumer solutions so cutting costs is important. If you really need such extensive RAID options then your probably looking at server territory...

 

[aka1nas]

It's pretty much impossible to find a consumer-level RAID 2 solution.

Most single-user apps don't need the extra transfer rates of 3 or more disks in RAID 0. On top of that, most inexpensive RAID controllers don't scale well. I have ran a 4 disk RAID 0 and it wasn't really worth it. 0+1 would have been a better choice as you would get some redundancy. Keep in mind that a few well-implemented RAID 1 capable controllers can do parallel reads(theoretically the same read speed of RAID0). Think some 3-Ware cards can do that.