I have a 64gb Kingston ssd and a 1tb caviar green hdd. I am getting a second green soon in a pc purchase and was thinking about getting a second of the same ssd. First off can you do multiple raids on a single system? Like raid the hdd and then raid the ssd? Will this speed up my processing at all? Its all going to be part of a i7-920 setup with 12gb of ddr3 ram. so system can handle it. Just wondering if its feasable and makes sense. Look forward to opinions on the topic.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can you do multiple raids on one system?
- Thread starter rjolin01
- Start date
Old Hippie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,013
You can do that with Intel depending upon your MB's chipset.
Check out the possibilities here.
I know nothing about AMD's possibilities.
Check out the possibilities here.
I know nothing about AMD's possibilities.
hotcrandel
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 781
Yes, you can do multiple RAID arrays. For example, on my ASUS P55 motherboard, for a while I had 2 WD 1tb drives in RAID1, another two in Raid0, and another raptors two in Raid0.
Now, I have a single SSD and just the two velocirators in RAID0. The raid controllers would call the SSD a "Non-Member Disk" and the two drives in the RAID array are "member 0:1 and member 0:1" or something like that.
In general, a lot of people say software RAID with the generic WD Green drives is a bad idea; the western digital drives have a "recovery mode" that makes the hard drive inaccessible for a few seconds, and can make the drive drop from the RAID array. You can read up on "TLER" or time limited error recovery.
You *don't* want to mix members of drives with different spindle speeds, and in general different models.
What exactly are you doing RAID for in the first place? RAID is *not* a backup. RAID is about either uptime or performance. It's an extra layer of complexity you don't really need for the vast majority of home users.
Now, I have a single SSD and just the two velocirators in RAID0. The raid controllers would call the SSD a "Non-Member Disk" and the two drives in the RAID array are "member 0:1 and member 0:1" or something like that.
In general, a lot of people say software RAID with the generic WD Green drives is a bad idea; the western digital drives have a "recovery mode" that makes the hard drive inaccessible for a few seconds, and can make the drive drop from the RAID array. You can read up on "TLER" or time limited error recovery.
You *don't* want to mix members of drives with different spindle speeds, and in general different models.
What exactly are you doing RAID for in the first place? RAID is *not* a backup. RAID is about either uptime or performance. It's an extra layer of complexity you don't really need for the vast majority of home users.
wkearney99
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 370
Why do some folks insist on making blanket statements like something isn't useful for "the vast majority". That's just plain wrong. Sure, it's not about backup. Nothing's better than having the data safely stored somewhere else. But a mirror can make a big difference between rebuilding the machine from scratch versus just popping in a new drive. As drives get larger the time to reload from a backup becomes a serious issue.
Why do some folks insist on making blanket statements like something isn't useful for "the vast majority". That's just plain wrong. Sure, it's not about backup. Nothing's better than having the data safely stored somewhere else. But a mirror can make a big difference between rebuilding the machine from scratch versus just popping in a new drive. As drives get larger the time to reload from a backup becomes a serious issue.
A back-up can have you back up and running within minutes.
A RAID that got corrupted or FUBARed is just a system that's now dead in the water.
wkearney99
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 370
Minutes? You're a fool if you think that's going to happen. Given the sizes of large drives these days it's AT LEAST an hour's time for the backup to run. More if it's using external media needing to be swapped. Whereas a mirror would keep running, likely without interruption, and rebuild in the background. The only downtime would be to deal with the rip and replace of the drive mechanism. Even less if the drives were in trays.
It's just as likely the corruption would occur in the offline backup as the online data in the RAID.
I'm advocating use of a mirror along with backups. Given the low cost of drives and the ease with which many new motherboards can setup a RAID mirror this is a fairly safe and cost effective recommendation.
It's just as likely the corruption would occur in the offline backup as the online data in the RAID.
I'm advocating use of a mirror along with backups. Given the low cost of drives and the ease with which many new motherboards can setup a RAID mirror this is a fairly safe and cost effective recommendation.