Raid 0 question

[Praetorian7]

No experience in RAID configurations when I set up my new comp. I set up two drives in a RAID0 config. However, it seems I'm using the silicon image raid included in the ASUS A8N-SLI deluxe. It seems there is also the onboard Raid. Through deductive reasoning it seems I'm using a software configuration for Raid instead of hardware. Am I wrong? If not, can I switch to the onboard controller? what are the differences, advantages?

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Praetorian7
Through deductive reasoning it seems I should use the seach function?

:laugh:

 

[AristoV300]

LOL funny. The native SATA controller "should" perform better but I very much doubt you will see a difference. OVerall my recommendation is not to you RAID 0, there is no real performance in desktop use.

 

[Cares]

RAID 0 doubles your chances of hardware failure and losing your data. If one drive fails, then both fail.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: AlphaQ
RAID 0 doubles your chances of hardware failure and losing your data. If one drive fails, then both fail.

I understand the data loss aspect of RAID 0, but explain how it damages hardware.

 

[Praetorian7]

thanks. i can see i probably effed up. so how would i go about changing to the native onboard controller? i know i can do it in the bios, but if i do it would i lose data or cause instability b/c of the change?

 

[Blain]

Reformat into single drives. Everything you don't backup somewhere will be lost forever.

 

[fstime]

I have 3 hard drives.

2x 80 GB
1x 160 GB

Raid 0 works great, really, what the hell am I going to do with 3 drives.

I just raid-0 the two drives and I get a nice 160 gb hard drive.

It isnt about increasing performance to me.

And this whole hardware failure thing... If one hd fails the whole raid fails but as long as you have good quality drives I dont see WHY they would fail.

In fact, i've been using raid 0 for almost a year with no problems.

I even have a Maxtor 40 gb and WD 40 gb in raid-0 for around a year and that still works fine.

Seems to me raid-0 is very reliable since you can even mix hard drives.


To simple things up.

If your looking to increase performance its not worth it.

If you have more than 2 hard drives like me and want to create one big hard drive and leave one as backup its worth it.

If you only have 2 hard drives its not worth it because you have no backup now!!

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: AlphaQ
RAID 0 doubles your chances of hardware failure and losing your data. If one drive fails, then both fail.

I understand the data loss aspect of RAID 0, but explain how it damages hardware.

failure =! damage

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: AlphaQ
RAID 0 doubles your chances of hardware failure and losing your data. If one drive fails, then both fail.

I understand the data loss aspect of RAID 0, but explain how it damages hardware.

failure =! damage

I said I understand the data loss possibility with RAID 0... I got that part of the deal.
But how do having two drives RAIDed up togther double the chance of one of them failing?
I can't see how simply the act of having two drives arrayed CAUSES HARDWARE failure/damage. :shocked:

 

[imported_whatever]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: AlphaQ
RAID 0 doubles your chances of hardware failure and losing your data. If one drive fails, then both fail.

I understand the data loss aspect of RAID 0, but explain how it damages hardware.

failure =! damage

I said I understand the data loss possibility with RAID 0... I got that part of the deal.
But how do having two drives RAIDed up togther double the chance of one of them failing?
I can't see how simply the act of having two drives arrayed CAUSES HARDWARE failure/damage. :shocked:

it doesn't increase the chance of each drive failing, but it does increase the chance of you losing ALL of your data instead of half of it.

 

[lansalot]

And this whole hardware failure thing... If one hd fails the whole raid fails but as long as you have good quality drives I dont see WHY they would fail.

Drives will fail - "good quality" does not apply, all drives will fail at some point. Period.

In fact, i've been using raid 0 for almost a year with no problems.

Good for you. Come back every month and give us an update. Eventually, you will be here an unhappy man.

Seems to me raid-0 is very reliable since you can even mix hard drives.

"Raid0" and "reliable" are not compatible. In fact, it's questionable that level 0 should be classed as RAID anyway, what with the R standing for redundant - there is no redundancy in a stripe set.

To the OP, moving your raid0 set from the SiI to the nvidia controller - you will most likely lose your stripe set (different vendors use different methods of defining their sets), so as Blain says, backup first.

 

[mad38dog]

man why is everybody knocking the op
all he asked is a simple question and everybody comes back with don't do this or youll lose everything if one hd fails.
did you ever think that maybe he has 3 drives like many people do that they put their sensitive data on for safekeeping.

but what if, (oh no this can't happen) that hard drive fails or any hard drive fails that has youre sensitive data on it youre still screwed.

That is why cdr's or dvdr,s are made because these things happen.

the op was just asking a simple question and my reply (which may be wrong) is you probably need to move your config to the nivida controller and you will probably lose all your data in the process, so save your important stuff before you proceed

 

[fstime]

quote:




Drives will fail - "good quality" does not apply, all drives will fail at some point. Period.

What the hell is this guy talking about.



Do you have any idea what your talking about?

If the hard drive will fail at some point as you claim, what does that have to do with raid?

BTW: Your wrong, not all hard drives fail.

You must be new to computers.

I have have drives from 10 years ago still running.

quote:




Good for you. Come back every month and give us an update. Eventually, you will be here an unhappy man.

I think you should stop being a smart ass.

:disgust: :roll:

quote:




"Raid0" and "reliable" are not compatible. In fact, it's questionable that level 0 should be classed as RAID anyway, what with the R standing for redundant - there is no redundancy in a stripe set.

Raid is very reliable.

Have you even tried it?

Probably not.

I have set up several raid arrays and none have failed.



When you get your facts straight come back.

 

[imported_g33k]

Slighlty off topic

I have Raid 0 Raptors and I was wondering, if I took them off a raid array and set them up as two single drives, do I need to install OS's in both drives? If not, can I also install programs in both drives?

For example, could I boot off the drive with an OS and install Doom 3 into the drive without the OS?

 

[lansalot]

My facts are straight, perhaps they are too technical for you to understand? I thought I made them clear, but hey-ho. My warning indicators went off when you said "raid is very reliable" - apparently you don't know the first thing about it, or you wouldn't say that. You can't create a raid device, it has to have a particular level, such as Raid0, raid1 etc

You clearly don't know, or even understand, the simple point I explained. Raid0 is not for reliability, it is for performance - there are plenty of articles on this on the web that you can find that will back that up as I'm sure you won't take my word for it. Failing that, perhaps someone else who actually understands the technology will reinforce the point I made.

The fact that you have set up several arrays and none have failed means absolutely nothing. That's such a ridiculous statement to make.

If the hard drive will fail at some point as you claim, what does that have to do with raid?

All hard drives will fail eventually. Perhaps not before you outgrow it and throw in a larger one, but as a mechanical device its time is sadly limited. That's a sad reality for all of us, and you're lucky if it hasn't happened to you. A quick look around these forums will find posts asking for help in getting data off a dead disk. And when one disk fails in a raid0 config, you lose the volumes on it. No if's, and's or but's.

Hope that's clearer for you. If it isn't, like I say, hit the books. You are the one sadly lacking in the fact department.

For what it's worth, I'm certified with Veritas Volume Manager, and Solaris DiskSuite. I work with RAID systems every day mostly on Sun hardware, but plenty of Dell PERC as well.

Regardless, here's one to start you off:
From http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html
Level 0 -- Striped Disk Array without Fault Tolerance: Provides data striping (spreading out blocks of each file across multiple disk drives) but no redundancy. This improves performance but does not deliver fault tolerance. If one drive fails then all data in the array is lost.

Clear? When calling someone a smartass, try not to look like his dumb cousin in doing it

And apology would be nice, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[lansalot]

@ g33k

Sure you could, go ahead

For what it's worth, I tend to create a small partition (c.10gb) for the OS, and install all my data, games etc to another partition. This makes it much easier to blow away the C: drive with a format should the need arise without having to copy everything off the disk.

You need to assess what you want your system to do, and plan from there.

I know this might read like I'm anti-Raid0, but I'm not - it's just I think a hell of a lot of people get into it thinking it's a very fashionable, geeky thing to do - and sometimes regret it later. This is from personal experience - my BP6 had two 40gb IBMs in it, running 24x7. When one drive started failing (ok when cool, when warmed up, started getting errors), I had to haul the thing into the office, throw in a 100mb network card and copy everything over to one of the servers. I swore never again at that point.

Just out of interest, I might start up a poll to see what the average disk life expectency of forum folks amounts to...

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: lansalot
My facts are straight, perhaps they are too technical for you to understand? I thought I made them clear, but hey-ho. My warning indicators went off when you said "raid is very reliable" - apparently you don't know the first thing about it, or you wouldn't say that. You can't create a raid device, it has to have a particular level, such as Raid0, raid1 etc

You clearly don't know, or even understand, the simple point I explained. Raid0 is not for reliability, it is for performance - there are plenty of articles on this on the web that you can find that will back that up as I'm sure you won't take my word for it. Failing that, perhaps someone else who actually understands the technology will reinforce the point I made.

The fact that you have set up several arrays and none have failed means absolutely nothing. That's such a ridiculous statement to make.

If the hard drive will fail at some point as you claim, what does that have to do with raid?

All hard drives will fail eventually. Perhaps not before you outgrow it and throw in a larger one, but as a mechanical device its time is sadly limited. That's a sad reality for all of us, and you're lucky if it hasn't happened to you. A quick look around these forums will find posts asking for help in getting data off a dead disk. And when one disk fails in a raid0 config, you lose the volumes on it. No if's, and's or but's.

Hope that's clearer for you. If it isn't, like I say, hit the books. You are the one sadly lacking in the fact department.

For what it's worth, I'm certified with Veritas Volume Manager, and Solaris DiskSuite. I work with RAID systems every day mostly on Sun hardware, but plenty of Dell PERC as well.

Regardless, here's one to start you off:
From http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html
Level 0 -- Striped Disk Array without Fault Tolerance: Provides data striping (spreading out blocks of each file across multiple disk drives) but no redundancy. This improves performance but does not deliver fault tolerance. If one drive fails then all data in the array is lost.

Clear? When calling someone a smartass, try not to look like his dumb cousin in doing it

And apology would be nice, but I won't be holding my breath.

What the hell?


You are the biggest moron on this forum.

I never said raid 0 was meant for reliablity or for performance.

No ones giving a smart ass like you an apology, I suggest you go get a life and stop attacking my statments with your insults.

It amazes my how these losers keep showing up here.

- I see no differance of a hard drive failing on its own or in a raid 0 config.

- If your scared one of your two drives will fail then dont use raid,

I suggest you invest in some good quality drives.

- I never said its meant to be reliable but it is.

 

[lansalot]

Ah, my first flame on these forums. I would have hoped for a proper discussion, but hey-ho. Perhaps in another thread, with a grown up.

Bed-time for you little boy, go get your jammies on

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: lansalot
Ah, my first flame on these forums. I would have hoped for a proper discussion, but hey-ho. Perhaps in another thread, with a grown up.

Bed-time for you little boy, go get your jammies on

Im not the one making the smart ass coments.

Go somewhere else troll.

 

[lansalot]

BTW: Your wrong, not all hard drives fail.
You must be new to computers.
I have have drives from 10 years ago still running.

Never said all drives will fail within 10 years, just that they will at some point - unless yours aren't privy to the laws of physics? Simple enough for you? English your first language?

You are lucky if you have 10 year old drives still going. I have a couple here about that age as well.

 

[fstime]

I dont find myself lucky.

Many other people I know have drives running for that amount of time or even more.

I see old P11 and Athlon k-6 machines running all the time.

 

[Snoop]

I swear, It seems like a cycle around here. Every few months RAID 0 becomes popular, people waste money on it, then come to find out that their are basically 0 (besides some non typical situations) benefits. People would see a much greater performance improvement if they take the extra 120 or so they spend on an extra hardrive and invest in a faster CPU, video card, memory, or buy a singe Raptor.

RAID 0 = turd that wont flush

 

[Rock Hydra]

I have a raid question. What abou Spanning, will you only lose have your data then? Isn't Spanning another Raid 0 option? My RAID controller doesnt' support Drive Spanning.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: BouZouki

quote:




Drives will fail - "good quality" does not apply, all drives will fail at some point. Period.

What the hell is this guy talking about.



Do you have any idea what your talking about?

If the hard drive will fail at some point as you claim, what does that have to do with raid?

BTW: Your wrong, not all hard drives fail.

You must be new to computers.

I have have drives from 10 years ago still running.

quote:




Good for you. Come back every month and give us an update. Eventually, you will be here an unhappy man.

I think you should stop being a smart ass.

:disgust: :roll:

quote:




"Raid0" and "reliable" are not compatible. In fact, it's questionable that level 0 should be classed as RAID anyway, what with the R standing for redundant - there is no redundancy in a stripe set.

Raid is very reliable.

Have you even tried it?

Probably not.

I have set up several raid arrays and none have failed.



When you get your facts straight come back.

Dude RAID is reliable, but you have 2 drives that can BOTH fail.

Imagine a dice. If you ever roll a 3, you get shot in the head. You roll it a few times. After a while you get a 3. You're dead.

Now take two die. If EITHER get a 3, you're dead. Do you like those chances? I don't think so.

Same with hard drives. If either OR BOTH fail, you're gone in Raid 0. Your chances are effectively doubled. I don't know whether you've taken statistics or not, but I took it in my junior year of high school. I'm sure even middle schoolers can tell you the probability doubles.

Second of all. Not all drives fail? You're damn right. I've had a IBM DeathStar that failed in 2 weeks. I RMAed it and the new one failed within 6 months and fully died in 9 months. I RMAed that one and got a new one that lived for over 3 years. What do you want? It failed on me again and is clearly damaged late in 2004 but it is still usable.

I don't know what you're talking about. How can you say not ALL drives fail. You simply just don't run into drives that fail. Maybe you're not like me. I leave my computer on overnight a lot. I don't shut down too much. But so what?

Just because you haven't run into failure yet doesn't mean drives don't fail.

I haven't gotten in a car crash yet. I haven't gotten a ticket.

My parents haven't gotten into a car crash until 20 years after they started driving. Just because your drive hasn't failed yet doesn't mean it's super reliable.

Another statistics example. If Kobe misses 8 shots in a row (yes he sucks too), it doesn't mean he will make the next one. His chances of making a shot are independent of the history. Ok. Now RTFM.