• 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.

OS on RAID??

A

animeguru

Needs More Cowbell
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
1,434
Is there any reason why or why not to load the OS onto RAID?? Originally I had my server running Win2k on an IDE drive and all the SCSI drives used as storage.

Recently, I've decided to rework my arrays and I'm trying to decide if I should eliminate the IDE drive from the system and either run the OS on a single SCSI drive or in a RAID config. It's basically just a file server, so it doesn't really need too much power behind it. Actually, the RAID card probably does most of the work for the system.

Any thoughts?? I'll probably wind up just running a single drive, but I wanted some opinions about running it via RAID 0, 1 or 5.
 
I generally don't put the OS on any of my RAID arrays, simply because mine are just for data redundency. In my file server I have about 320GB in a RAID5 array, and the OS on a 18GB drive, since I don't need the quicker loading times and if it fails, I just slap in another drive and reinstall and my datas safe on the RAID array.
 
well Id say that if youve got it tweaked (serious security, database ect. something past an easy install) you want to Ghost it instead of RAIDing it, in the event of a security issue, a simple reghost to the last state (if its static) if on the other hand its dynamic (with the OS tracking data stored on a redundant)_ Id probably mirror
 
OS on RAID 0, why not? It's very fast.

I know, I know... everyone says RAID 0 can lose everything when one drive goes, but... so what?
I have all my data totally backed up on 5 different hard drives. The really important stuff is on my webserver too (just in case of a house fire or something really bad).

My last 4 (?) computers have been RAID 0 systems and all have had the OS on the RAID array. You pay for all that speed, why would you not use it?

Of course, since we're just talking about a file server...
 
Originally posted by Excavator
OS on RAID 0, why not? It's very fast.

I know, I know... everyone says RAID 0 can lose everything when one drive goes, but... so what?
I have all my data totally backed up on 5 different hard drives. The really important stuff is on my webserver too (just in case of a house fire or something really bad).

My last 4 (?) computers have been RAID 0 systems and all have had the OS on the RAID array. You pay for all that speed, why would you not use it?
Click to expand...

Speed is not always the deciding factor, at minimum any server I put in at client's location has RAID 1. Think about the time it would take to rebuild the OS and settings on the server. Not exactly downtime that any of my clients or myself would appreciate.

My own servers run the built in OS mirroring in Win2k3, while data on separate raid 5 array. I will be setting up an additional domain controller with same storage setup that will be replicated via AD automatically.

There are certain instances where raid 0 is appropriate, but file servers just are not one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top