Raid 0 or 1

[jongyoo]

I was wondering how they function differently between the two RAID's. I know that one is for performance and another for data reliability but other than that I'm clueless. Fill me in, thanks

-jong

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Well - just for a pointer, type RAID 0 or RAID 1 into google and .......

Anyway,

Basically RAID 0 splits data over a couple of drives (known as striping). This can lead to improved access times that affect read/write performance. Recent investigations by storagereview.com, anandtech.com, etc. Have shown that this is generally not the case unless in very specific circumstances --> not worth it.

Secondly because RAID 0 stripes the data if one of the drives in the RAID 0 setup fails your data is fcked --> not worth it.

RAID 1 uses mirroring, meaning whatever is written to one drive is written to an identical twin. If one fails the other can take over. This provides redundancy but can impact performance depending on the controller used --> only worth it if you have some important data that you can't back up regularly (and if this is case you should consider the more fault tolerant RAID 5).

Hope that helps - there's plenty of web resources on this so I'll let you look them up,

Andy

 

[Blain]

Is it a long process to restore a new drive in RAID 1 after one has failed?

 

[Fencer128]

Depends on the OS. In Win XP you relpace the drive, break the mirror and then rebuild it. Takes minutes for a normal HD.

Andy

 

[Navid]

RAID1 is necessary if you cannot afford to have the system down if something happens to the drive. An example would be a company that has high-paid employees doing their work on computers. You don't want those employees to be sitting down doing nothing waiting for the IT guy to bring back up the system.

But, RAID1 is not a replacement for backup.
If you delete a file by mistake on a RAID1 setup, that file is gone!