• 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.

Let's talk about RAID

R

RancidWAnnaRIot

EspantaPajaros
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
11,033
RAID = random array of inexpensive disk right??!? so how come i can't find inexpensive HDDs? $50 ain't inexpensive...
 
You probably weren't alive back when my father had to roll out to Stanford to buy a Leading Edge 8088 at a screaming 4.77MHz, 640k of memory, 20MB of drive space, and a 1200-baud modem, all for the bargain-basement price of $5500. Drives are roughly a dollar a gig these days, stop complaining.
 
Actually, it's Redundant, not Random.

But anyway, it used to cost a lot for a large HDD, so combining multiple smaller and cheaper drives together was more cost effective. Plus, you get some redundancy with most flavors of RAID, so your data is less suceptible to HDD failure.

These days, the advances in technology and the price wars have driven costs down considerably. That said, larger SCSI drives are still cost prohibitive for most, so combining multiple small drives together saves some money... in some cases. ;)
 
Depending on whom you ask, some people will also define RAID as Redundant Array of Independent Disks. That makes a lot more sense in many cases.

And Snugglebear is right, in my opinion hard drives are amazingly cheap for the amount of storage and performance you can get from them now.
 
UICompE02 said:
Depending on whom you ask, some people will also define RAID as Redundant Array of Independent Disks. That makes a lot more sense in many cases.

And Snugglebear is right, in my opinion hard drives are amazingly cheap for the amount of storage and performance you can get from them now.
Click to expand...

As for this comment, It is Redundant Array of InExpensive Disks. Independent is highly misleading since they are now part of a RAID.
 
DeepFreeze said:
As for this comment, It is Redundant Array of InExpensive Disks. Independent is highly misleading since they are now part of a RAID.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on how you think about them. You could consider them independent in a RAID 5 array, for example, because if one disk dies, the other drives are not affected and the data is still accessible. It's all a matter of interpretation, and according to all the training I've had, either version of the acronym is correct.
 
yeah...if you want to know about Expesive disks...a friend of mine worked for MCI about 10-15 years ago and they paid $40k for a 4Gig disk array and it was the size of a refrigerator....I can remember paying $500 for an 810Meg disk so considering I can go to newegg and spend $93 for a 160gig drive I wouldn't consider that too expensive
 
Kids these days just don't know how far we have come along... :D

I guess he was thinking that a CPU can be had for $50 but a HD can't be that much complex than a CPU? Well, you are comparing apples and oranges anyway.
 
Point made.... sorry i'm one of these young whiper snappers that doesn't know how good we have it now... :D

I got into building rigs and stuff around the middle of the PIII days, and not the 8086 days...
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
Point made.... sorry i'm one of these young whiper snappers that doesn't know how good we have it now... :D

I got into building rigs and stuff around the middle of the PIII days, and not the 8086 days...
Click to expand...


whats wrong with 8086's...?
 
Nothing is wrong.. i'm just saying i got into computers well after the PC revolution started. So i don't really know how things were in the 8086 days of computing.
 
and for the definitive answer

This technique is called Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks or RAID. ("Inexpensive" is sometimes replaced with "Independent", but the former term is the one that was used when the term "RAID" was first coined by the researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, who first investigated the use of multiple-drive arrays in 1987.)
Click to expand...

:p

but who is to say the past dictates the future?
 
Can somone tell me what each raid number is? RAID 0 is a 1 disk esqu solution, RAID 1 is mirroring and thats all I know.
 
Stolen directly from searchstorage

There are at least nine types of RAID plus a non-redundant array (RAID-0):

RAID-0. This technique has striping but no redundancy of data. It offers the best performance but no fault-tolerance.
RAID-1. This type is also known as disk mirroring and consists of at least two drives that duplicate the storage of data. There is no striping. Read performance is improved since either disk can be read at the same time. Write performance is the same as for single disk storage. RAID-1 provides the best performance and the best fault-tolerance in a multi-user system.
RAID-2. This type uses striping across disks with some disks storing error checking and correcting (ECC) information. It has no advantage over RAID-3.
RAID-3. This type uses striping and dedicates one drive to storing parity information. The embedded error checking (ECC) information is used to detect errors. Data recovery is accomplished by calculating the exclusive OR (XOR) of the information recorded on the other drives. Since an I/O operation addresses all drives at the same time, RAID-3 cannot overlap I/O. For this reason, RAID-3 is best for single-user systems with long record applications.
RAID-4. This type uses large stripes, which means you can read records from any single drive. This allows you to take advantage of overlapped I/O for read operations. Since all write operations have to update the parity drive, no I/O overlapping is possible. RAID-4 offers no advantage over RAID-5.
RAID-5. This type includes a rotating parity array, thus addressing the write limitation in RAID-4. Thus, all read and write operations can be overlapped. RAID-5 stores parity information but not redundant data (but parity information can be used to reconstruct data). RAID-5 requires at least three and usually five disks for the array. It's best for multi-user systems in which performance is not critical or which do few write operations.
RAID-6. This type is similar to RAID-5 but includes a second parity scheme that is distributed across different drives and thus offers extremely high fault- and drive-failure tolerance. There are few or no commercial examples currently.
RAID-7. This type includes a real-time embedded operating system as a controller, caching via a high-speed bus, and other characteristics of a stand-alone computer. One vendor offers this system.
RAID-10. This type offers an array of stripes in which each stripe is a RAID-1 array of drives. This offers higher performance than RAID-1 but at much higher cost.
RAID-53. This type offers an array of stripes in which each stripe is a RAID-3 array of disks. This offers higher performance than RAID-3 but at much higher cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top