|
|
RAID 0 or RAID 1?
I'm getting two 120GB HDs to run on RAID.
From what i've heard and read, RAID 0 is extremely fast but since it decreases your seek times a bit it is very prone to data loss and HD failure.
RAID 1, while slow, is very very reliable.
However, a friend of mine has ran drives on RAID 0 for over a year. The difference is that his drives are all 8mb cache drives instead of the standard 2. He says he has never had data loss or HD failure. But i take everything he says with a grain of salt, since he's sometimes full of shit and loves to exaggerate.
So, RAID users, what do you use with your drives? I'm trying to decide if i should shell out the extra $ for 8mb cache drives, and if they work reliably in RAID 0, since if they don't i might as well save the money and use normal 2mb cache drives.
iNVAR 01-10-2003, 02:52 AM RAID-0. This technique has striping but no redundancy of data. It offers the best performance but no fault-tolerance
RAID-1. This type is also known as disk mirroring and consists of at least two drives that duplicate the storage of data. There is no striping. Read performance is improved since either disk can be read at the same time. Write performance is the same as for single disk storage. RAID-1 provides the best performance and the best fault-tolerance in a multi-user system.
It's not like RAID1 will slow your hard drive speed down.
wait. according to that, for raid 1 i need two 120gb HDs for 120gb of space...?
Xaphan 01-10-2003, 05:06 PM yes
iNVAR 01-10-2003, 05:33 PM Originally posted by ayzianboy
wait. according to that, for raid 1 i need two 120gb HDs for 120gb of space...? yes sir
NAT Mav 01-10-2003, 05:58 PM Originally posted by ayzianboy
wait. according to that, for raid 1 i need two 120gb HDs for 120gb of space...?
Yup.
RAID 0 gives you 100% usage but no fault tolerance.
RAID 1 gives you 50% usage but fault tolerance.
RAID 5 gives you a usage % based on the # of drives in the array (3 drives = 2/3 usage, 4 drives = 3/4 usage, etc.) and is fault tolerant.
iNVAR 01-11-2003, 12:41 AM yeah, but you need 3 drives for raid 5 i think. and it's slower than raid 1 as well.
Bohica 01-11-2003, 02:02 AM Originally posted by invar
yeah, but you need 3 drives for raid 5 i think. and it's slower than raid 1 as well. Mmm. It's faster than raid 1, slower than raid 0.
iNVAR 01-11-2003, 03:07 AM RAID-0. This technique has striping but no redundancy of data. It offers the best performance but no fault-tolerance.
RAID-1. This type is also known as disk mirroring and consists of at least two drives that duplicate the storage of data. There is no striping. Read performance is improved since either disk can be read at the same time. Write performance is the same as for single disk storage. RAID-1 provides the best performance and the best fault-tolerance in a multi-user system.
RAID-5. This type includes a rotating parity array, thus addressing the write limitation in RAID-4. Thus, all read and write operations can be overlapped. RAID-5 stores parity information but not redundant data (but parity information can be used to reconstruct data). RAID-5 requires at least three and usually five disks for the array. It's best for multi-user systems in which performance is not critical or which do few write operations.
:shrug: argue with www.whatis.com, i only read it and go off that. :)
ahh ok.
so RAID 0 isn't actually more prone to data loss. it just functions like a normal HD with no backup.
gracias
iNVAR 01-11-2003, 03:27 PM well yes ayzianboy, but look at it this way. if ONE of the drives goes bad, then BOTH of your drives go bad as a result of the other.
wait.
if I have 2 120gb drives on RAID 0
and one drive's 120gb of data gets corrupted
the other 120gb goes fubar too?
i'm wondering how that's possible... :(
iNVAR 01-11-2003, 04:46 PM the drives rely on each other. it's not like you just have a drive and that's that. the way they're formatted and all that relies on each other. i don't know the technical details about it, you should google for that part, but i think it has to do with laying out the structure across both disks.
Bohica 01-11-2003, 04:54 PM Raid 0 is called "striping". Information is written across the two disks. All the information for a given file isn't necessarily located on a single disk.
so is there RAID # where i can use the two drives like i would two separate HDs. Or am i stuck picking between either two drives combined as one through striping on one hand, and 1/2 the disk space on the other
FastAttack 01-12-2003, 12:38 AM I do RAID 0+1
iNVAR 01-12-2003, 01:07 AM what's the point of doing that azn? you'd still have to write to either one drive or the other per file.
i don't believe the RAID controllers handle stuff on the filesystem level, so it's not doable from that end.
what you're asking for isn't even RAID, it's just combining two drives into one. pointless.
Bohica 01-12-2003, 02:06 AM you can do spanning, but what's the point? i mean, the whole point of raid is to add performance and redundancy by utilizing multiple drives. :/
Originally posted by invar
what's the point of doing that azn? you'd still have to write to either one drive or the other per file.
i don't believe the RAID controllers handle stuff on the filesystem level, so it's not doable from that end.
what you're asking for isn't even RAID, it's just combining two drives into one. pointless.
what i meant was to have it write to only the specified drive (ie if i have 2 120gb HDs in RAID it should show up as drive G: for one and H: for the other).
|
|