who uses raid?

[csmaster2005]

just curious, who has a raid setup, and what do you use it for? (to mirror a drive incase 1 fails, and thus you have a backup, or do you use it to combine 2 hd's into 1 so you have faster responses?)

I don't know too much about raid, but was somewhat curious to know.

Also, is the benefit of combining 2 drives into 1 THAT noticeable speed wise?

Do you use software raid (if so, which?) or hardware raid?
thanks!

 

[Blain]

RAID 0 here...
Because I'm one of the Glitterati :laugh:

 

[csmaster2005]

what's a glitterati?
What do you use to run the raid? The built in one on windows? Do you knows any benefits?
Also, that's the one where 2 drives act as 1, and data is split between the two correct?

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

I have an Areca ARC-1220 PCIe RAID controller with 4-400gb WD RE2 hds in RAID 5 and two WD 150gb Raptors in RAID 0. RAID 0 is for games & scratch, and RAID 5 is for storage and backup.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: csmaster2005
what's a glitterati?
What do you use to run the raid? The built in one on windows? Do you knows any benefits?
Also, that's the one where 2 drives act as 1, and data is split between the two correct?

This might help explain the different RAID types

 

[RadiclDreamer]

In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Better performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Oh, and I always use Hardware raid, there is a slight but noticable CPU overhead from software raid. Use software only if you are strapped for cash

 

[AMDfreak]

I use almost the same setup as Fullmetal Chocobo. Areca 1220 with 2x 74GB Raptors in RAID-0 (boot drive - applications and games) and 3x 500GB Seagates in RAID 5 (storage and backup).

RadiclDreamer has the RAID comparisons on the money.

RAID 0 can get you speedy transfers, especially with 3 or more drives, but access times are a little slower than with a single drive. You also multiply your risk of failure by the number of drives in the array.

I put RAID 1 in my dad's system. He's by no means a power user, but is fearful of a drive failure.

RAID 5 is more expensive to implement (minimum 3 drives, you lose the storage space of 1 drive in the array) but usually has faster read speeds that a single drive or RAID 1.

If you're running your own private data center , the Areca cards can do RAID 6. Think of it like RAID 5, but with 2 parity stripes. You lose the space of 2 drives in the array, but you can suffer 2 simultaneous drive failures without data loss.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: csmaster2005
what's a glitterati?

:laugh: > "People who glitter" < :laugh:

 

[nweaver]

raid0 is pretty much worthless, there are very negligible speed gains.

I run raid, but I manage servers, so /shrug.

I do run some limited software raid at home, but it's on linux, so S/W raid is actually faster then some hardware raid, and works great. It's also nice, as I don't have to dedicate full drives to my software raid, only partitions.

 

[Cutthroat]

I'm running RAID and I'm gonna stop once I can get my hands on some of the new SATA drives that can match or beat the performance of the Raptor. The extra performance most of the time is just not necessary, and RAID is a pain in the ass to deal with.

 

[csmaster2005]

nweaver - ok being able to set what partitions to raid is really useful, I didnt know that before. What do you use your raid for exactly?

Also, anyone know any good or decent software raid's?

 

[imported_Tick]

Hard raid 5. I loves tha parrrriity!

 

[ch33zw1z]

I use a RAID 1 for storage, then back up all critical files (pics, movies, etc..) to a couple external sources and a spare drive I use in the system for stuff.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.

DVD media sucks, especially with hd's being so damn cheap these days.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage

Just a correction

 

[corkyg]

I keep my data on a RAID 1 array of two 120s. Then I clone that weekly to an external 120. Seems fairly redundant and has not been a problem.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i use 2 x 150gb raptors in raid 0 for total of 300gb of storage for my Vista 32-bit OS and all my programs. media files are stored on seperate single seagate 7200.10 drive

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Cutthroat
I'm running RAID and I'm gonna stop once I can get my hands on some of the new SATA drives that can match or beat the performance of the Raptor. The extra performance most of the time is just not necessary, and RAID is a pain in the ass to deal with.

only faster rpm drives will meet the performance of the raptor in the seek times area, but there are quite a few drives that beat it in str and have been for some time

 

[VirtualLarry]

I have a software RAID5 on an SIL3114 controller that just went tits-up today.


Repeat after me: FAKERAID SUCKS! FAKERAID SUCKS! ...


It was in the middle of a copy job, and I got a "Delayed Write Failed" message (first one ever), and then the Raid Mgmt software said that ports 1 and 2 had a SCSI error, and both became orpans, even though it showed all my drives as "healthy".

So for no reason that I can fathom, I had an error and had two drives drop out.

Thankfully, I rebooted and they came back in degraded mode, and then port 1 dropped out again during the rebuild. So I rebooted again, and now it has been rebuilding overnight. Hopefully the filesystem (NTFS) isn't too corrupted.



I think that hardware RAID is more reliable, due to one simple fact - with a closed hardware system, the variables can be more tightly controlled, and errors weeded out more diligently. With a software RAID, the storage subsystem becomes opened up to all of Windows' strangeness and misery. There are simply more uncontrolled external variables, which makes it more unreliable.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage

Just a correction

I disagree. RAID 5 performance is on par with my RAID 0 array on my controller in benchmarks.

Benchmarked using HD T une 2.53:

boot -- 74gb Raptor on motherboard (P5N32-E SLI Plus)

games -- 2x150gb Raptors (RAID 0) on Areca ARC-1220

storage -- 4x400gb WD RE2 (RAID 5) on Areca ARC-1220

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: csmaster2005
nweaver - ok being able to set what partitions to raid is really useful, I didnt know that before. What do you use your raid for exactly?

Also, anyone know any good or decent software raid's?

I use Linux, and I have my /home partitions on a raid 1 between 2 disks.

Linux md raid is the best imho.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.

repeat after me

Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage

Just a correction

I disagree. RAID 5 performance is on par with my RAID 0 array on my controller in benchmarks.

Benchmarked using HD T une 2.53:

boot -- 74gb Raptor on motherboard (P5N32-E SLI Plus)

games -- 2x150gb Raptors (RAID 0) on Areca ARC-1220

storage -- 4x400gb WD RE2 (RAID 5) on Areca ARC-1220

Traditionally, RAID 5 has slower writes, but faster reads then a single disk