• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

do you raid?

Over 5TB...I have one RAID array. Single drives are more flexible for my applications.
 
no... once I get the money I am going to build a big RAID 5 array though.
 
raid 5 yes, yes and yes!
the only way to prevent simple hardware failure...

my reasons: anime! mp3s!
basically its for dumb storage so that i dont have to keep on buying DVDs and keeping THEM orgonized.
 
The only reason for RAID is to protect uptime.

RAID does not protect data.
 
Virus/other malicious activity?
You accidentally delete something?
You accidentally save an unintended modification to a file?
Your house/whatever structure your computer is in burns down/floods?
Your file system gets corrupted?
Driver goes haywire and trashes the metadata/filesystem?
 
half of those are caused by ignorance or stupidity....
as far as i am concerned the if you have a UPS and a raid 5 you take 2 problems out of the equation

1) power failure while difraging.... which is instant death to the file system
(or something similar)

2) hard drive hardware failure due to who knows what.

if i can live comfortably with less to worry about, then i am a happy camper.

it is up to the individual to decide what they need... or want.

I have lost 2 hard drives over the course of the past 5 years.
the data on some of them was gathered over years, and its a pain to get it back.

if you have something really! important, then burn it (that goes without saying)
if you loose it, then it falls into the stupidity category

i guess to each their own level of comfort...
 
Megalomaniac said:
sure it does... when one drive fails, your data is still safe.
Click to expand...
but if 2 fail in raid5 your sol

raid 0 1 TB here currently

check out raid 10, you burn 1/2 of the space, but each drive has it's own parity
 
piako said:
but if 2 fail in raid5 your sol

raid 0 1 TB here currently

check out raid 10, you burn 1/2 of the space, but each drive has it's own parity
Click to expand...

what if two of the same drives fail? :D (as in the one drive and its Raid 1 counterpart)
then yout still lost it.
but 2 drives failing at the same time due to hardware problems is less likely than one...
 
Yes. I have 3 300GB disks in raid 5 usually, but right now I'm playing with them.

 
piako said:
but if 2 fail in raid5 your sol

raid 0 1 TB here currently

check out raid 10, you burn 1/2 of the space, but each drive has it's own parity
Click to expand...

Please look up the difference between parity and mirror. They are distinctly different. RAID 1 uses mirroring and RAID 5 uses parity.

And with RAID 10 or 0+1 you still can have a data failure with a 2 drive failure. The solution for that is hot-spare. However with a hot-spare you still can lose data if the 2nd drive fails before the hot-spare is done being built after the first drive fails. The hot-spare is not constantly kept in sync because well it can't be since it is possible to know which drive in a RAID5 will fail. RAID6 solves this issue. Course you could also use RAID 1+5 (mirror of raid5 arrays).
 
Do other disks usually fail during a rebuild? Is that common? I would assume if you started with a batch of disks with the same mauf. date they would all fail around the same time.
 
piako said:
Do other disks usually fail during a rebuild? Is that common? I would assume if you started with a batch of disks with the same mauf. date they would all fail around the same time.
Click to expand...

This is actually true. And why hot-spares are very common in server setups. And why RAID-6 is gaining use. When you have a 14+ disk array all with the same age, and amount of use, the chances of getting a multiple drive failure close in time frame is actually fairly high.
 
very true above...
i used to work at one place which had a very old 8 (old novell and NT4) drive raid rack and we would *pray* everytime we had to shut it down and power it up.....

the best thing to do when a drive fails in raid 5 is to shut down the array and get a replacement. if you want to be sure sure, test the drive before you plug it in...
 
No array currently. Will be building a raid-5 for storage though. Dont see myself using raid-0.
 
still dont get why people would use R0 outside of some specialized enviroments (concurrant with R5 in a video editing machine for example), whatever floats your boat and meets your needs I suppose.
 
I could do it just for internet arguments. My RAID 0 is a backup -- a full backup of my RAID 5 array. It's fast, cheap, and storage-efficient. All its drives could go up in flames without me losing any data.

Of course, if my RAID 5 array had a 2 drive failure at the same time as even a 1 drive failure in my RAID 0 array, I'd be very very sorry. There's always some risk, there's also a cost factor -- RAID 0 is the cheapest, fastest, most easily available, and storage efficient, and of course the least reliable.
 
The only RAID I use is the bug spray I use out behind my shed. RAID5 is the only common RAID type that should even be considered right now. RAID0 is a joke (I'm not even going to mention the fact someone above is using RAID0 as a backup drive....dear god :rolleyes: ), and RAID1 is nice but you are loosing half the space, and you're data remains online all the time, leaving it vulnerable to malware. That second drive would be better off in a USB enclosure.
 
i could post my server/raid setup at work, but waste of time

for Work/server Yes to Raid
Home answer is No.
 
djnes said:
The only RAID I use is the bug spray I use out behind my shed. RAID5 is the only common RAID type that should even be considered right now. RAID0 is a joke (I'm not even going to mention the fact someone above is using RAID0 as a backup drive....dear god :rolleyes: ), and RAID1 is nice but you are loosing half the space, and you're data remains online all the time, leaving it vulnerable to malware. That second drive would be better off in a USB enclosure.
Click to expand...

How is RAID 1 more suspectible to malware than RAID5?

RAID1 has distinct advanatages over RAID5 that it should not be discarded just because it is more costly storage wise.

RAID1 is faster than RAID5 for writes, RAID1 is simpler tech requiring less expensive hardware to work with little performance issues. Because RAID1 is simpler it is possible to break the RAID array yet still access your data without a RAID controller at all or with another brand of RAID controller. This is not possible with any other type of RAID. For this reason RAID1 is used in boot devices more than RAID5 in production environments.

RAID0 also has its uses but much more specilazed and is very useful when composite arrays are being used.
 
m1abram said:
How is RAID 1 more suspectible to malware than RAID5?
Click to expand...
No where did I say that. I guess I shouldn't have assumed it was obvious I was comparing RAID1 to an external USB drive.

I'll take RAID5 speeds over RAID1 anyday. If you've ever been around enterprise servers, they typically boot from the same RAID5 volume, so I'm not sure where you are getting your "facts" from. That would defeat part of the purpose of using RAID5.
 
djnes said:
No where did I say that. I guess I shouldn't have assumed it was obvious I was comparing RAID1 to an external USB drive.

I'll take RAID5 speeds over RAID1 anyday. If you've ever been around enterprise servers, they typically boot from the same RAID5 volume, so I'm not sure where you are getting your "facts" from. That would defeat part of the purpose of using RAID5.
Click to expand...

Actually I have a new server sitting right next to me that I am setting up to add to our production system. We use RAID 5 and RAID1 and RAID 10 for heavy write database servers. Since this box is a web server I set it up with RAID5 since write performance is not as critical as read.

RAID5 is much slower on writes than a RAID1 or RAID10, I have done alot of research trying to inch performance out of our database. Now on reads RAID5 is faster for the most part than RAID1.

My point to my post was each RAID level has its own purpose. Each has advantages and disadavantages over the others. You must look at your requirements to determine which if any to use.
 
m1abram said:
Actually I have a new server sitting right next to me that I am setting up to add to our production system. We use RAID 5 and RAID1 and RAID 10 for heavy write database servers. Since this box is a web server I set it up with RAID5 since write performance is not as critical as read.

RAID5 is much slower on writes than a RAID1 or RAID10, I have done alot of research trying to inch performance out of our database. Now on reads RAID5 is faster for the most part than RAID1.

My point to my post was each RAID level has its own purpose. Each has advantages and disadavantages over the others. You must look at your requirements to determine which if any to use.
Click to expand...
It's also important to note that there are a lot of variables. I am sure that it is possible to build a RAID controller, whose RAID-1 read performance on lots random reads will outperform a RAID-5 array with the same number of drives. Considering that RAID-1 could use the independent spindles to reduce seek time, which RAID-5 cannot, provided that sizeof(read) > sizeof(stripe).

I agree with you generally though: Each RAID level has its advantages and disadvantages. If it was not for that, why would there be different levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top