To Raid or Not to Raid

T

Thxiiet

n00b
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
26
Picked up a pair of 7500AAKS drives. Seemed to have the best balance of performance, capacity, and price.

I'm planning on reinstalling Windows on the new drives, but I can't decide if I should Raid0 them or not.

I've read the storage review article on the benefits and disadvantages of Raid0, but am still not sure.

Uses: gaming, OS, media
 
Will you have anything in place to backup the RAID 0 array? If not, are you willing to lose nearly 1.5TB of data if one of the drives were to fail?
 
The idea of losing 1.5tb of data, of which my dissertation research will be part of, was too much to bear. I don't think I'll lose out to much on performance to make the risk of loss worthwhile.

I am though pondering the idea of ordering a third drive and going for Raid5.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Only a backup provides "data security." RAID improves speed and uptime (other than RAID 0, which only improves speed)
Click to expand...

I guess I should have phrased that better. Hard backup of important data is always a good idea. Raid 5 does provide more ease of mind than RAID 0 or a single drive however.
 
Is Raid 1 good enough? I've been looking at building a networked backup drive (when I say backup drive, I mean a centralized storage location for all my files, accessible from the network that is mirrored...) but I am not sure if I should spend the extra cash and doe a raid 5 type device or if raid 1 is good enough. We're talking my personal data here, not a corporation's.
 
havand said:
Is Raid 1 good enough? I've been looking at building a networked backup drive (when I say backup drive, I mean a centralized storage location for all my files, accessible from the network that is mirrored...) but I am not sure if I should spend the extra cash and doe a raid 5 type device or if raid 1 is good enough. We're talking my personal data here, not a corporation's.
Click to expand...

From an uptime standpoint RAID 1 is equal to RAID 5 with 3 drives. Both setups are capable of sustaining 1 drive failure.

From a performance standpoint RAID 5 will beat RAID 1. Also, RAID 5's performance will increase as more drives are added to the array.
 
Sorry to the OP for going off his topic... I just didn't see the point in making another raid post when I could probably get mine answered here.


Well, I'm not necessarily concerned about uptime. Much more centralization and not losing my data.

My current problem is:
1) 100gb Laptop HD is mostly full
2) 320gb external HD is mostly full
3) 2x120gb desktop drives are mostly full
4) 160gb external laptop drive is mostly full

Now, while it MAY seem like I have a crazy amount of data, I really don't have THAT much. The problem is that because I have no backup device, I have something like 3 copies of all my critical data in various stages of 'backup.' My thought was to build a centralized location that WAS backedup, in real time so that I could avoid this ridiculous redundancy. A USB enclosure seemed dumb because I would have to haul it from my desktop to the living room when I wanted data from it OR leave my desktop on all the time, which also seems dumb.

So that leaves me with 2 options. 1) built a simple low powered box to sit in the living room with a raid card and several drives in it and is plugged into the router. However, this is just another thing to fail and have to keep up and running OR 2) find an ethernet enclosure that does raid 1 or 5. Raid 5 in my case seems excessive, honestly. I think i'd be much better off just buying 2 1tb drives and picking up a nice enclosure for 300 that would let me log in from outside the network. Only problem with that is if the enclosure fails, i'm up shit creek without a paddle. (also makes me nervous having that security risk from outside the network). Do you have a different take/suggestion for me?

And when I start looking at the pricetag, it gets a bit much. $300 for a nice raid1 enclosure, like THIS one then $150 each for the 750gb drives or $250 each for 1tb drives.

On the other hand, I could buy a raid 5 setup and more, lower capacity drives for less each...
 
None of those solutions will help you if the building burns down. If you really want security, your best bet would probably be to backup to a drive (or removable media) and take it offsite - preferably encrypted.

Raid is for insuring uptime in case of drive failure; it is not a backup nor is it a substitute for one.
 
You're right. If I was really serious, I would do a tape backup and exchange it between my home and a safe deposit box. But, that seems extreme. I'm mainly concerned about having all my data in one place and a drive failing. In that case, Raid 1 would provide me with a reliable backup solution, correct? Chances of losing 2 drives at once is remote. It's happened, my friend works in IT and says he does see it, but rarely. Only way around that is a more elaborate raid setup. Problem with that line of thinking is it can literally take you to ridiculous lengths.
 
havand - have you seen the Windows Home Server thread here? May or may not work for you, and may depend on up front costs of building a low-end box or if you happen to have some old parts to install it on. WHS is $170 at Newegg. I paired it with some old A64/3200+ parts, moved some drives I already had into the server, and for $170 I now have daily backups of my client pc's in addition to the other WHS features.
 
How many GB of truly critical data do you have to back up? If you have 8 HDs in one computer & a power spike hits, you have potential to lose them all regardless of how considerate you are in the RAID setup. You mentioned tape backups, safe deposit box, etc.., what about a simple periodic (weekly..monthly?) backup onto a separate computer or external HD, or burn DVDs if looking for an extra layer of redundancy.

RAID5 + any type of external backup device/medium should be sufficient (if not overkill), tho your cautious approach is admirable.
 
No, I had not seen it. I'll look into WHS. Thanks for the suggestion!
 
DrStrangeBrew said:
How many GB of truly critical data do you have to back up? If you have 8 HDs in one computer & a power spike hits, you have potential to lose them all regardless of how considerate you are in the RAID setup. You mentioned tape backups, safe deposit box, etc.., what about a simple periodic (weekly..monthly?) backup onto a separate computer or external HD, or burn DVDs if looking for an extra layer of redundancy.

RAID5 + any type of external backup device/medium should be sufficient (if not overkill), tho your cautious approach is admirable.
Click to expand...

Truly critical data? Probably just a few random GB or stuff and then my photos. The rest of it could be replaced (at quite a bit of expense), but my 100GB or so of photography work really can't be replaced.

EDIT: As for the power spike, I keep our router/modem on a APC backup (which I assumed would handle a spike/brownout/lightning strike, but not that I think about, I never confirmed that...). I haven't implemented it yet, but I have a server APC my friend got me that I plan to wire a large percentage of the electronics through. Keep watching the movie if the lights go out AND protect the equipment.
 
RAID can never be a backup system, though it does increase reliability. But even if you don't have a power surge, maybe something in the PSU or motherboard goes wrong, or the RAID controller has a fit and starts writing corrupt data.. there are all sorts of possibilities. Maybe part of the ceiling falls in and crushes the computer, even, or you have a leak and the room fills with water.

RAID is certainly more reliable, but "backup" implies that there's near certainty that you won't lose the data, which can't be the case unless the backup copy has as little in common with the original as possible. So it really depends on whether you just need to minimise the risk of losing your data, or guarantee as far as possible that you won't lose it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top