How reliable would a Raid 0 setup be?

[krizzle]

I'm looking to buy two (seagate) 120gb hard drives and put them into RAID 0 config...
Now, what worries me is, is it risky to run RAID? as in, would any of you suggest not keeping valuable data on a RAID-0 setup?

Furthermore, is there any way to move all my data from my current PATA system disk, e.g. OS + Program files, etc... to the fresh RAID setup without having to reinstall a new copy of the OS to the RAID drives???

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I'm kind of a noob in this RAID stuff, and I don't have much time to research myself.

Thanks in advance

 

[lithium726]

yes, it is risky to run RAID 0. what raid 0 does is it stripes your data across multiple disks.. which ups your lilelyhood of running into problems. when data is saved to a raid 0 volume, it is written to the first sector on teh first disk, and then goes to teh first sector on the second, and on. when one disk fails, since you have the single files spanned across several disks, you loose EVERYTHING

since raid 0 only helps performance very, very little, its pretty much worthless.

 

[s10010001]

I ran 2 80 gig maxtors in RAID 0, for 9 mounths. Now i am running 4x 80gb maxtors in RAID0. Been going for 7 mounths now... I dont use them as my OS drive, my OS is on 2x raptors 10k . I like RAID-0, but yea, with every drive you up the chances of loosing your data. One drive crashes you loose everything. The preformence gains are nice, as long as you back up your stuff. Personally i use a 200GB external drive for backups, and really importaint stuff, i burn to DVDs. (mainly pics of my daughter....get up to 5 gigs now, i need some DL-DVDs disks now)

Now, my friend ran 2 100gig drives on RAID 0 with some cheap 35$ u133 card form newegg, his array hasnt lasted longer than 3 mounths yet, it just keeps loosing itsself. the drives are both good, but the card is messin up or somethin...I would stick to a promise card, or adaptec card IMO. I use both and love them, you get what you payfor, i say.

As for moveing you stuff to the array? that all depends? Do you currently have you data on one of the 120 gig, and looking to add the other and make the array? If so then no, you will need to format both drives as one before you can write to them.

 

[evilmicah]

I run six WD 250GB Drives in RAID5 on a Promise Supertrak card with 128MB.

Yes, the card makes a difference, but I ran four WD 120GB drives on an onboard High Point raid chipset on my Soyo Dragon 333 Ultra Platinum. Never lost the array. Alot can be said for quality components. A properly sized Power Supply which is suited to the systems load is very important. Case in point. I was running the stock PSU that came with my Inwin Q500 case - that PSU was a Powerman 300. I ran that PSU with the following hardware -

Soyo Dragon 333 Ultra Platinum - AMD 1800XP - 3x 512MB DDR2100 - SB Live 5.1 - Geforce 4 ti4200 - WD 60GB - Adaptec IEEE1384 PCI card - Linksys 10/100 NIC - 4x WD 120GB - 2 optical drives

That machine ran XP Pro, and was stable, with usage as gaming, primary use, mpeg encoding, video playback, and dvd ripping. Both NIC's were active, as it also served as a gateway for my video capture machine, yellowdog linux machine, and any test machines I'd have running on the network. (yes, I know it's an odd way to do things - using a windows box to protect a linux box) The machine was stable - usually required a reboot once every 4-6 weeks.

I started overclocking the video card, and the motherboard - I ended up ruining both, and after RMA'ing them, I noticed that the machines stability wasn't what it used to be. I at first chalked this up to bad hardware - until I realized it was the PSU. I RMA'd the PSU, and put it in a box for a later PC project, replacing my PSU with an Antec True430. Stability returned. I used that PSU up until I decided to upgrade the machine again. Now it's using a Lian-li PCV2000 case - best case I've ever seen or owned. (After seeing it, I had to own it.)

Swapped out the ti4200 for a ti4600, then swapped the ti4600 for a FX5950Ultra (it's good to have a friend who owns a computer store!), swapped the CPU for a 2400XP, bought a Fortron 500W PSU, and put the Antec on the shelf. Bought the Promise Supertrak card, stuck a 128dimm in it, and added two more 120GB drives to the card. Soon found myself running out of space, so I bought six 250GB drives, put those online, and I've been pretty happy since.

Raid is not without it's snafu's, I've had to do quite a few recovery's as I learned. I've found that Array sychronization is important when you are constantly reading/writing/deleting on the partitions. Also, as tempting as it may be to not have an online spare in a RAID5 array - it's a good idea to have one.

FWIW - I still keep backups of my important data on five 120GB WD drives that I have left over from my old raid array (I sold the 6th to a friend for $40). I use three Firewire/usb drive adapters for this purpose. I'd love to go LTO2 like we have at work, but it's just not worth it.

Sorry for the rambling. In short - yes, RAID-0 is a bit faster, though not double like some people want to think. Reliability suffers but only because one drive is eventually going to crap out before the other. I'd recommend using a program such as Sandra to benchmark your raid array with differint block size settings - then benchmark the drive as a stand alone drive. Compare those results, then decide if it's worth it. Personally, I don't keep IDE drives in the array for much longer than a year - so I don't worry about the drives failing.

 

[s10010001]

Personally, I don't keep IDE drives in the array for much longer than a year - so I don't worry about the drives failing.

likewise...

 

[Ice Czar]

I employ RAID 0 only as transitory performance space
I also throw any new drive that might be considered for a RAID 0 into a redundant array first for a breakin period
giving it a month or so to develop any problems that might have occured from shipping damage

while alot of folks talk about the statistical potential of double (for a 2x) the chance of data loss
do to hardware failure of a drive its actually higher than that, when you factor in the corruption potential
(from whatever initial cause, there are many. power, malware, filesystem ec. they are however equally applicable to most storage with the exception of the number of interfaces which might be involved in a multi-drive array, number of cables, caddies, ect)
and or the potential to loose the controller (especially integrated on a mobo)
normally you can replace the controller and access the array again, however buying a mobo based on its onboard controller is less than appealing

( and is how I wrote off my first RAID 0 array)

 

[defakto]

Just remember RAID 0 is better described as AID 0 as there is not redundancy at all.

 

[Ice Czar]

AID as in what youll require if it ever goes south