• 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.

Raid 0+1

K

kubalaTF

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
401
I'm puting together a new system and I see that Office Depot has 60MB MAXTORs for $30 after rebates. I was thinking of going RAID 0 but didn't want to rebuild. Then I thought a SATA drive to boot from and have a RAID 0 for the other spots. But I have just discovered that if I go RAID 0+1 and the primary array goes out, I can replace it easy with the other half. Sounds good to me, RAID 0+1 for $120. What do you think.
 
heck, with hdd's being that cheap, I'd just use the money I saved to buy a decent controller and then go raid 5.
 
What is RAID 5 exactly? I've heard very little about how it really works. If it involves 5 HDs, I only have 4 spots in my case. But there is that empty CD burner spot. . . A controler would cost money though. I'm already blowing right past my max, with no signs of slowing down.
 
Raid 5 uses 3 + hdd's, using the amount of hard drives - 1 for space. It uses a parity bit, but separates it among the drives, so it is kind of like raid 0 + parity, so if 1 drive fails, you can put a spare in and it will keep going. I have 4 scsi drives in raid 5 right now and its pretty darn snappy! :D

P.S. THERE IS NO MAX!! MUWHAHAHA!!! (welcome to hardware addiction, meetings at 5, free coffee/doughnuts)
 
I found an awsome site that shows all sorts of RAID formats in an easy to understand. . .way.

www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html

Without buying a separate controller, It looks like I'll have to stick to 0+1 if I decide to go that route. I just have to find more adresses because the rebate says 1 per household. And I can't run 0+1 on just 1 drive. Would it be faster and easier if I just droped the whole raid thing and just go for 1 SATA drive (please say no, please say no, please say no).
 
RAID-5 is crap compared to RAID0+1. The only advantage it is has is lower cost. RAID5 can be done with 3 drives and you only lose 1. RAID0+1 takes at least 4 drives and you always lose HALF your drives, instead of 1. RAID5 with 6 drives, you lose 1. RAID0+1 with 6 drives, you lose 3.

RAID0+1 has killer read AND write times. RAID5 has CRAP write times and RAID0+1 speed read times.

People think RAID-5 is all that and a bag of chips, but it's a serious downgrade from RAID0+1.

-MrD
 
I dunno, I think it depends on what you want. Raid 5 = faster than no raid, and is also more stable/able to withstand drive failures than 0+1. If you don't really care that much about losing drives (as the ones you are using are cheap anyway), then 0+1 is a fine choice. Personally, I do important work on my computer, and I also don't have many drives to throw around if one fails, so I'll stick to 5 personally.
 
raid 0+1 with 6 drives you don't lose three drives, you lose half the array if a drive goes down. so you'd be rebuilding three drives whorth of data, also raid 0+1 can have two hardrives fail and keep running, 1 on each side of the raid 1 array. Raid 5 can only sustain one loss. For price/gigabyte for drive space raid 5 is cheaper as it won't "lose" 1/2 the total drive space for the array.
 
insanarchist said:
I dunno, I think it depends on what you want. Raid 5 = faster than no raid, and is also more stable/able to withstand drive failures than 0+1. If you don't really care that much about losing drives (as the ones you are using are cheap anyway), then 0+1 is a fine choice. Personally, I do important work on my computer, and I also don't have many drives to throw around if one fails, so I'll stick to 5 personally.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying. How does RAID-5 withstand drive failures better? If a drive is going to fail, it's going to fail no matter what you're doing on it.

RAID-5 is also SLOWER than a single drive during writing, but faster during reading. You need to have a killer RAID card with at least 128MB of cache on it to keep the RAID-5 writing from bogging your system down.

As for the redundancy, defakto already said it best above. RAID-5 is good for people who don't want to pay double (2 hard drives per 1 usuable) for their storage needs.

-MrD
 
MrDigital said:
RAID-5 is crap compared to RAID0+1. The only advantage it is has is lower cost. RAID5 can be done with 3 drives and you only lose 1. RAID0+1 takes at least 4 drives and you always lose HALF your drives, instead of 1. RAID5 with 6 drives, you lose 1. RAID0+1 with 6 drives, you lose 3.

RAID0+1 has killer read AND write times. RAID5 has CRAP write times and RAID0+1 speed read times.

People think RAID-5 is all that and a bag of chips, but it's a serious downgrade from RAID0+1.

-MrD
Click to expand...

I agree.

My best experience thus far has been 7 Seagate X-15's (15000rpm U320 SCSI drives) in RAID 10 with a hotspare. Unfortunately my controller card crapped out. Oh well.

I'm running 4 x Seagate SATA 160GB drives in RAID 10 right now for my documents drive off my Gigabyte GA-8KNXP Ultra-64 And it's ROCK solid. Fast as hell. Anything that is important goes on that 'drive'. And I'm running a 73GB U320 Seagate 15k rpm drive for my system drive- can't complain.

And it's not Losing 3; it's using them for another purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top