RAID 0 Questions regarding data lost.

V

vvilliamm

Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
593
I currently have one wd 1tb black and one wd blue 500gb.. im using the 1tb as my os and the 500gb as my storage. i was curious if its worth to spend another 56 dollars for another wd blue 500gb and run it in raid 0.

Question
i experience alot of "unannounce shutdowns/power off" sometimes randomly when i plug in my iphone. i was curious if i were to run it in raid and if this was to happen does it mean that i would have to reinstall windows again?. or it just means that w.e i didn't save is now lost.
 
If the RAID array isn't your OS then you wont have to reinstall, however your RAID array will continually get effed up and you'll probably spend more time rebuilding the array than using it. Wouldn't be worth it if it happens a lot.

Ditch the crappy iPhone :p
 
I've been using a 2500AAKS (single-platter 250GB Caviar Blue SE16) RAID0 array for about a year now. The array is a beast--a monster. Ridiculous load and file copy times. I love it. I know other people who have been running arrays with these drives 2+ years with no problems. What you might want to do is run three drives in RAID5, that way you'll have fault tolerance with parity and maintain the speed of striping. RAID5 is my plan for the future.
 
You can't rebuild a RAID0.

However, crashing OS is not good. Especially the Windows RAID drivers behave very poorly in this regard; they may be dropped out of the array upon a crash and when you boot up you'll see the array is broken.

So make sure not to store any important files on the windows RAID volume; consider it to be vulnerable.
 
alright let me get this straight.. lets say this is my set up

win 7 on my raid 0
my power "suddenly goes off"

Will i loose all my data on my raid 0 set up causing me to reinstall win 7 again? or do i just loose w.e data i was downloading or w.e files i was typing up on word.
 
vvilliamm said:
alright let me get this straight.. lets say this is my set up

win 7 on my raid 0
my power "suddenly goes off"

Will i loose all my data on my raid 0 set up causing me to reinstall win 7 again? or do i just loose w.e data i was downloading or w.e files i was typing up on word.
Click to expand...

It works just like a normal disk operating by itself, except it's not :)

If RAID0 was that fragile I assume no one would want to use it.
 
vvilliamm said:
alright let me get this straight.. lets say this is my set up

win 7 on my raid 0
my power "suddenly goes off"

Will i loose all my data on my raid 0 set up causing me to reinstall win 7 again? or do i just loose w.e data i was downloading or w.e files i was typing up on word.
Click to expand...

It's likely that the storage driver fucks up the array completely and you'll have to recreate it (thus erasing everything you had on it).

NoForgiveness said:
It works just like a normal disk operating by itself, except it's not :)

If RAID0 was that fragile I assume no one would want to use it.
Click to expand...

RAID0 is very fragile. Using two drives doubles the chance of a individual drive failing. Four drives quadruples it, etc. Then you have the problem where each array is configured differently and there's no real way for any type of recovery if the array does fail.
 
ah i see i currently have one wd blue 500gb and getting another one tm for 46 dollars =]
so i was thinking of doing raid but afraid that i would have to keep reinstalling my os in a event that my computer suddenly goes off. but since its not likely for me to reinstall my os every time it gets a "random power off b.c of w.e reason power spike etc" then im going to do it. could i make a image of my current hdd.. and install it on my raid so i dont have to reinstall my os and everything.

my new hdd is being shipped by ups to my local staples store.. i hope they dont toss it around lol i guess i should run a test for bad sectors/ damage sectors first

any advice im new to this.. raid thing lol
 
ryan_975 said:
It's likely that the storage driver fucks up the array completely and you'll have to recreate it (thus erasing everything you had on it).
Click to expand...

It is NOT likely that any of that will ever happen.

You're actually trying to make the OP think that RAID0 arrays go down all the time?

No.
 
vvilliamm said:
ah i see i currently have one wd blue 500gb and getting another one tm for 46 dollars =]
so i was thinking of doing raid but afraid that i would have to keep reinstalling my os in a event that my power suddenly went off.
Click to expand...

Go for it. Don't believe the FUD. RAID0 is safe. Just keep your critical data backed up.
 
And another thing, in RAID0, each drive does half the work that it normally would by itself, so drives in RAID0 are technically supposed to last twice as long :) (this assumes two drive RAID0, in three drive RAID0 each drive would do a third of the normal work and have three times the life expectancy, etc).
 
NoForgiveness said:
It is NOT likely that any of that will ever happen.

You're actually trying to make the OP think that RAID0 arrays go down all the time?

No.
Click to expand...

He asked if the power goes out while he's writing to the array will it corrupt it... the answer is that it's highly likely. I've had storage drivers kill a single disc system, but the filesystem was on a single drive and easily recoverable. But it you have important file system structures split across multiple discs, recovery is not always easy.


EDIT: RAID0 is nice to have, but you have to be more diligent about keeping your data safe.

NoForgiveness said:
And another thing, in RAID0, each drive does half the work that it normally would by itself, so drives in RAID0 are technically supposed to last twice as long :) (this assumes two drive RAID0, in three drive RAID0 each drive would do a third of the normal work and have three times the life expectancy, etc).
Click to expand...

That's a bunch of rubbish. Drive lifetime isn't measured in how many times a seek is done.
 
I've had the power go out on both enterprise level RAID1 and RAID5 as well as end-user RAID0 and RAID1 many many times and can't say I've had a problem with data corruption yet. Get a surge protector, LOL?

But if data corruption was to happen, clearly the chances are twice as much when running RAID0.

I like your edit. Way to end your post :)
 
NoForgiveness said:
Go for it. Don't believe the FUD. RAID0 is safe. Just keep your critical data backed up.
Click to expand...

+1

ive been running raid0 for a long time now on my 250's. just keep important data on a different drive.

and ive had crashes and lock up and win7 loads every time.
 
NoForgiveness said:
I've had the power go out on both enterprise level RAID1 and RAID5 as well as end-user RAID0 and RAID1 many many times and can't say I've had a problem with data corruption yet. Get a surge protector, LOL?

But if data corruption was to happen, clearly the chances are twice as much when running RAID0.

I like your edit. Way to end your post :)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it always happens. Just that IF it does happen, and it does, that your chance of recovering your data is almost always nill. There are too many ways a RAID0 array can be setup, even with the same controller.
 
lol im sorry if i caused a fight here...

well im a noob in raid.. and i woudl like to learn how to set it up
my current mobo
GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128387

I dont need to buy a controller card right? since mine is built in?

I currently have one but getting another one tm for 46 ac/pm from staples.
Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKS
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=wd_carvier_blue-_-22-136-073-_-Product

how do i even set it up? lol

im going to create a image of my current WD black 1tb hdd. so i could install it on my raid 0. so i dont have to reinstall everything again


what do u mean there are many ways to set up raid 0.. i thought it was all the same lol
sigh i fail.
 
vvilliamm said:
lol im sorry if i caused a fight here...

well im a noob in raid.. and i woudl like to learn how to set it up
my current mobo
GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128387

I dont need to buy a controller card right? since mine is built in?

I currently have one but getting another one tm for 46 ac/pm from staples.
Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKS
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=wd_carvier_blue-_-22-136-073-_-Product

how do i even set it up? lol

im going to create a image of my current WD black 1tb hdd. so i could install it on my raid 0. so i dont have to reinstall everything again
Click to expand...

Yes, if your motherboard has it built in, then there is no need to buy controller. Although, it can be beneficial, especially if you want RAID5.

To set it up, you'd just have to set the storage controller to RAID mode in the BIOS setup. The hit the "magic keys" to get into the RAID setup utility during boot (e.g. Ctrl+S, Tab, etc. It'll tell you) . Select the drives your want to array, select the array type and stripe size. Once it's done, Windows will see the two drives as a single one.

It's a good idea to unplug any drives you DON'T want fubar'd while creating the array.
 
ryan_975 said:
That's a bunch of rubbish. Drive lifetime isn't measured in how many times a seek is done.
Click to expand...

Well I've been told many times that the more work a drive does the faster it is likely to die. We're not talking seeks, we're talking sequential data transfer. Those mechanical parts wear out due to how much they're used. It seems not only factual in hindsight, but also highly logical to me.

Edit: And also, I believe the drives still perform the same number of seeks in RAID0, they just do half or less of the work of writing and reading, thus adding to drive life.
 
NoForgiveness said:
Well I've been told many times that the more work a drive does the faster it is likely to die. We're not talking seeks, we're talking sequential data transfer. Those mechanical parts wear out due to how much they're used. It seems not only factual in hindsight, but also highly logical to me.
Click to expand...

umm.. seeking data is part of mechanical movement of a drive. sequential data actually involves less mechanical movement than random reads.

And yes, there is some difference in wear on a drive that works more than one that doesn't. but it's not typically enough to make a difference in longevity... at least not as much impact as things like defects and variation in manufacturing have on drive lifetime.
 
ryan_975 said:
umm.. seeking data is part of mechanical movement of a drive. sequential data actually involves less mechanical movement than random reads.

And yes, there is some difference in wear on a drive that works more than one that doesn't. but it's not typically enough to make a difference in longevity... at least not as much impact as things like defects and variation in manufacturing have on drive lifetime.
Click to expand...

Good stuff, well put :)
 
NoForgiveness said:
Edit: And also, I believe the drives still perform the same number of seeks in RAID0, they just do half or less of the work of writing and reading, thus adding to drive life.
Click to expand...

All of the work done by a drive's reading or writing is seeking. That's the only "work" a drive does while reading or writing. (other than than spindle motor). The rest is purely electronic.
 
ryan_975 said:
All of the work done by a drive's reading or writing is seeking. That's the only "work" a drive does while reading or writing. (other than than spindle motor). The rest is purely electronic.
Click to expand...

Yeah we definitely have a failure to communicate here LOL. I always thought of a 'seek' as being JUST the movement from one area of the drive to another, not as the process that happens when reading/writing sequential data. This isn't stuff that you learn with casual tech experience (at least not me) or A+ though. I see where you're coming from that ALL the drive's operations are 'seeking'.
 
so um could i use WD Acronis to create a image of my current hd and put it on my raid hdds?

is there any specific stripe size i should use? should i enable "TLER"? and how lol
 
TLER isn't necessary. It's a good precaution to take I guess, but it's not crucial. I still haven't bothered to check if I have TLER on. If you must have it, you will need a DOS-based boot environment to run the TLER enabler app, which you can get from WD.

You do not want to image your current HD to a RAID because the difference between the drivers loaded for a single drive vs RAID will probably (read: almost certainly) keep Windows from booting. But technically you could mirror any drive to a RAID array--remember, a RAID array appears as a single normal volume to the system!
 
You can mirror your existing HD and keep your existing data files and such, but you may have to reinstall Windows. It doesn't hurt to try though, at least all your files will still be there ready for you to work with.
 
yea=/ cause its alot of things i have to install i also have to call ms for another cd key since my key is a 1 time activation.
 
vvilliamm said:
How fast is raid 0 btw?
Click to expand...

Two drives in RAID0 will be 0% - 100% faster than one drive.

RAID0 gives the most benefit in reading large sequential files. Where one drive hits its max of 100MB/s or whatever, two drives in RAID0 should be able to provide close to 200MB/s in that situation.

However, most OS and app accesses are small random files. In this case, both drives still have to seek around to get to the data, then spend a tiny amount of time actually reading the data, then seek to the next random spot, etc. This is where SSDs absolutely destroy HDDs, and RAID0 won't make each HDD's physical parts move any faster. You increase your transfer rates, but the HDDs still have latency due to the physical movement of the parts inside, which RAID can't do anything about. If the RAID setup is smart enough (I don't know if current implementations are or not), and you happen to request two small pieces of data which are completely contained on opposite HDDs, it may be possible for them to access both pieces simultaneously. However, if the data is larger than the stripe size, it can't possibly fit on one disk, so both HDDs would be required to access that one piece of data.

I had a RAID0 setup back in the day, and huge EverQuest zones consistently loaded faster than on my girl's similar system without RAID. However, web browsing and basic stuff like that didn't show any noticeable difference in speed.
 
ok.. great after some weeks now i read that the WD BLACKs 500gb ones cant do raid well because you wont have TLER .. does any one know any other good hdds that has these kind of functions? and will i be able to turn on tler for the wd blues?
 
vvilliamm said:
ok.. great after some weeks now i read that the WD BLACKs 500gb ones cant do raid well because you wont have TLER .. does any one know any other good hdds that has these kind of functions? and will i be able to turn on tler for the wd blues?
Click to expand...
TLER does not matter for RAID 0 or RAID 1.

Also, most new consumer WD drives haven't had TLER enabled since October 2009.
 
hmm i guess this is what i have to do.. when i go into my raid setup put in 250gb as how large my partition would be then in windows create the partition of my other unallocated space on my raid
 
vvilliamm said:
i experience alot of "unannounce shutdowns/power off" sometimes randomly when i plug in my iphone.
Click to expand...


Is it just me or does that not just SCREAM at you of a future thread of "How do I recover all my data off a failed raid array " thread coming from this???

Seriously, before you invest a dollar in another HD or controller card, etc, get a decent UPS or figure out what the software conflict is thats causing this.
 
yea thats back 2 months ago =] i already built my self another comp the problem doesn't exist anymore and i dont think my gf is experiencing that problem with the usb and the iphone
 
Last edited:
Plus, I've had plenty of crashes and power offs during my year of running this RAID0 and never a single problem.

People blow the frailty of RAID way out of proportion, particularly the inexperienced.
 
NoForgiveness said:
And another thing, in RAID0, each drive does half the work that it normally would by itself, so drives in RAID0 are technically supposed to last twice as long :) (this assumes two drive RAID0, in three drive RAID0 each drive would do a third of the normal work and have three times the life expectancy, etc).
Click to expand...

This makes the bad assumption that usage/wear is the only factor in hard drive failure.
 
drescherjm said:
This makes the bad assumption that usage/wear is the only factor in hard drive failure.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It's a statistically-driven figure. If a drive does half the work it normally would, then one would expect it's mechanical lifetime to be extended to up to twice what it normally would be. It doesn't assume that usage/wear is the only factor, but it is definitely one of the main factors. Clearly, drives can fail for a variety of numerous other reasons, but as a case for RAID0, drives still do half (or less) the work they normally would, and that's nothin but good.
 
NoForgiveness said:
No it doesn't. It's a statistically-driven figure. If a drive does half the work it normally would, then one would expect it's mechanical lifetime to be extended to up to twice what it normally would be. It doesn't assume that usage/wear is the only factor, but it is definitely one of the main factors. Clearly, drives can fail for a variety of numerous other reasons, but as a case for RAID0, drives still do half (or less) the work they normally would, and that's nothin but good.
Click to expand...

As I said before, hard drives are generally mechanically robust. In most cases, it's not a mechanical wear that causes a drive to fail, bur rather manufacturing defects or electronic issues. I've got drives that are nearing 15-20 years old and still work, even though they're useless. Almost every drive I've ever had to replace due to failure has been either because the controller failed, the head crashed, or the magnetic media developed flaws. The one time it wasn't one of thise, it was a spindle motor burned up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top