RAID conundrum

2006-08-10 16:46:50

#1

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Not that I was particularly thinking about doing it, but hard drives are getting pretty cheap these days.

So my question was, could you use two hard drives in Raid 0 and run a third hard drive in RAID 1 collecting both sets of data from the two RAID 0 hard drives, getting increased load time with the two RAID 0 drives but backing all your data up on the RAID 0 drive?

Just wondering.

2006-08-10 16:57:12

#2

chittydog: less busy; +586|7137|Kubra, Damn it!

No.

2006-08-10 17:00:24

#3

chittydog: less busy; +586|7137|Kubra, Damn it!

Just run RAID 5 instead. It does pretty much what you're asking. It stripes across 3 (or more) disks, giving you a performance gain similar to RAID 0. If one of the disks goes bad, you can replace that disk and the array will rebuilt itself without losing the data on the bad disk. So, you get your backup and your performance. I don't understand why RAID 5 isn't more common.

2006-08-10 17:03:55

#4

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7018

raid 5 for safety and performance, raid 0 for performance, but if 1 drive fails, all your files on both drives fail... but chances of taht is 100,000 to one

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-08-10 17:05:48

#5

chittydog: less busy; +586|7137|Kubra, Damn it!

100,000 to 1? I've had 4 drives fail on me in the past 8 years and 2 that didn't. If yours are that reliable, I'm going to start buying my drives from Taiwan.

2006-08-10 17:18:23

#6

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Yeah that RAID five thing sounds like it pretty much does what I'm saying, and I'm suprised I doon't see it more. You could easily get a setup like that for the price of a new high-end video card.

2006-08-10 19:27:53

#7

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,060|7074|PNW

I just avoid RAID altogether. I only backup important stuff, which leaves more free drive space for other purposes.

2006-08-10 20:07:34

#8

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7018

chittydog wrote:
100,000 to 1? I've had 4 drives fail on me in the past 8 years and 2 that didn't. If yours are that reliable, I'm going to start buying my drives from Taiwan.

sorry, what i meant is chances or RAID 0 failing is 100,000 to one.

raid 5 requires 4 hard drives... 400 bucks for 100 dollar per drive...

2006-08-11 15:45:39

#9

blisteringsilence: I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy; +83|7004|Little Rock, Arkansas

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
chittydog wrote:
100,000 to 1? I've had 4 drives fail on me in the past 8 years and 2 that didn't. If yours are that reliable, I'm going to start buying my drives from Taiwan.
sorry, what i meant is chances or RAID 0 failing is 100,000 to one.

raid 5 requires 4 hard drives... 400 bucks for 100 dollar per drive...

Wrong. RAID 5 required a minimum of 3 drives, not 4. AFAIK, RAIDs 6, 10, and 0+1 are the only ones that require a min of 4 drives. RAID 50 needs 6.

I've installed several RAID 5 arrays, and have had 0 probelms with any of them. I think it's a beautiful compromise between data security and performance, especially in environments where you have constant read/write access. Now that you've said this, I really want to stripe a RAID 5 array on my gaming machine to see how it runs. Thanks.

2006-08-11 16:51:41

#10

PuckMercury: 6 x 9 = 42; +298|6829|Portland, OR USA

yes, RAID 5 requires 3 minimum, RAID 10 requires 4 minimum. RAID 0 is faster than RAID 5 as RAID 5 involves data integrity checking

BF2S Forums RAID conundrum

chittydog wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Board footer