Jump to content


Photo

Our Building a High End HTPC with the Thermaltake Mozart


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#13 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 03 December 2007 - 05:30 AM

Not really. RAID is used for speed. Real backup situations only use RAID if they have some huge file that you can't split up onto multiple harddrives.

No. RAID is used for redundancy...that's the entire reason it was developed (hence the name).

You guys are aware that there's more than one type of RAID, right? RAID-0 is for speed. RAID-1 is for redundancy. RAID-5 is for both. You're both right, and you're both wrong.
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#14 Andrewr05

Andrewr05

    I'll be whatever I wanna do!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perkinsville, VT

Posted 03 December 2007 - 05:41 AM

You're both right, and you're both wrong.

Pwnt x2

ona5.png

If you see the cops - LEAVE.

If the cops are coming - Don't be there.
If you show up and the cops are already there - DISAPPEAR.
Anyplace the cops are and you aren't, is a good day

:yes: 

Rig specs:

Spoiler

#15 LivingGhost

LivingGhost

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 873 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 08:01 PM

You guys are aware that there's more than one type of RAID, right? RAID-0 is for speed. RAID-1 is for redundancy. RAID-5 is for both. You're both right, and you're both wrong.

(Regarding RAID-1 and 5) If you corrupt data on a HDD, doesn't it get corrupted on the others? If you delete something from one HDD, doesn't it get deleted from the others?

RAID is NOT a backup solution. It's only useful if a HDD corrupts/dies, not if you corrupt/delete something...And the whole point of backups is to prevent against both.

Or am I wrong?

Edited by LivingGhost, 09 December 2007 - 08:01 PM.


#16 Kash

Kash

    Long Time Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edison, NJ

Posted 09 December 2007 - 08:24 PM

Yes, you would be wrong. It stands for Redundant Array of Independent Drives for a reason. When using RAID 1 or 5, if one drive fails, the others compensate until you replace the drive. No data is lost. RAID 0 is obviously different as there is no redundancy (I wonder why they still call it RAID :blink:)

Here, read the Wikipedia entry on RAID for an in-depth look into what exactly RAID is.

Intel i5 2500K | Gigabyte Z68
16GB G.Skill PC3-12800 (9-9-9-24) | EVGA GeForce GTX 560


#17 OneShot 926

OneShot 926

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Location:Tazewell Tn.USA

Posted 09 December 2007 - 09:08 PM

Hear is a Link to a HTPC that i was looking at maybe duplicating with maybe a larger hard drive.
Main rig.
939 X2 3800 @ 2800 MHz -Asus A8N SLI deluxe -G.skill pc3200 1024 X2-
EVGA 8800 GT -seagate 1Tb -ultra x2 550w. x-connect.
Samsung SyncMaster 22"widescreen.

Second rig.
939 3500+ Asus A8V deluxe -ultra pc3200 1024 X2 -BFG 6800 GT OC -ultra 400w PSU.

Third rig.
Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.2 -Asus A7n8x-e deluxe-corsair pc3200 2x256 -
ATI AIW radeon 8500DV 64 MB.

#18 LivingGhost

LivingGhost

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 873 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 11:58 PM

Yes, you would be wrong. It stands for Redundant Array of Independent Drives for a reason. When using RAID 1 or 5, if one drive fails, the others compensate until you replace the drive. No data is lost. RAID 0 is obviously different as there is no redundancy (I wonder why they still call it RAID :blink:)

Here, read the Wikipedia entry on RAID for an in-depth look into what exactly RAID is.

So if data corrupts on one drive, or I were to delete something on one drive in a RAID 1 or 5 array, you are saying that the other hard drives would still have that uncorrupted/undeleted file, and that they wouldn't just be mirrors of the drive with the corrupted file on it?

#19 oldfett

oldfett

    Trying to make the world silky smooth...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MI

Posted 10 December 2007 - 12:17 AM

So if data corrupts on one drive, or I were to delete something on one drive in a RAID 1 or 5 array, you are saying that the other hard drives would still have that uncorrupted/undeleted file, and that they wouldn't just be mirrors of the drive with the corrupted file on it?


Your right in that respect, corruption and file deletion would happen on both drives. The biggest value in RAID is if one hard drive goes down the other will retain all the data. But if you really were that worried about keeping your data safe you would have an off-site backup somewhere, because who knows... some natural disaster might hit your area and wipe out our PC and take all that data with it...

I think we may have strayed a little of topic though... the case looks tempting though, finally a place to store all my spare hard drives lying around!

Edited by oldfett, 10 December 2007 - 12:27 AM.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.4GHz || GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P || GIGABYTE 6970
G.Skill 4GB (2x2GB) 1066 || PCP&C Silencer 750 ||OCZ Vertex 2 || Misc. Storage Drives


#20 Waco

Waco

    Lab Rat 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:02 AM

You guys are aware that there's more than one type of RAID, right? RAID-0 is for speed. RAID-1 is for redundancy. RAID-5 is for both. You're both right, and you're both wrong.

RAID-0 is not a true RAID setup and I was not including it. It's not redundant in any sense of the word and shouldn't be called RAID.

Tolerance is a sign of weakness.


#21 hardnrg

hardnrg

    Overclocking the i7... finally

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester, UK

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:31 AM

I don't think anyone wants to say they have AID-0 in their rig though :lol:

A single RAID array with redundancy shouldn't be the *only* form of data protection in a mission critical system, there should be a fallback to a backup system that is typically updated once a day.
Yes, redundancy protects data by allowing disks to complete die, it could set on fire, with smoke coming out, and your data would still be intact on the other drives, and that's why RAID is also used for the daily full/incremental backup.

I wouldn't mind a case this big for my main rig, with the addition of a second radiator, I'm pretty much forced to mount it externally, if my case (full tower, 670mm tall) was twice as wide I'd have a lot more options for watercooling set up :)

( How To Ask A Question ) · ( [email protected] Sigpics ) · ( Rules ) · ( USB Bootdrive ) · ( Modding & Computer Stores ) · ( OCC facebook.png )
i7 920 D0 @ 21x196=4116, HT on · D-Tek Fuzion v1 · 3x2GB Corsair XMS3 PC3-10666 @ DDR1176, 8-8-8-22-1T
BFG/XFX GTX260 Maxcore SLI @ 756/1512/1188 (Swiftech MCW60-R + Swiftech GTX200) · Asus P6T Deluxe V2
X-Fi XtremeMusic (Hotrodded) · PCP&C Silencer 750

Athlon II X4 635 @ 2900 · 2x 2GB PC2-6400 · HD5550 1GB · Asus M4A77D · Antec Neopower 480

EeePC 1000H @ 12x164=1965 · 1x 2GB Corsair VS PC2-5300 · Gigabyte Aircruiser N300 GN-WI06N

 


#22 Waco

Waco

    Lab Rat 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:57 AM

I don't think anyone wants to say they have AID-0 in their rig though :lol:

Hey, my computer has AIDs! :lol:

Anyway - the Mozart would be the perfect case for a RAID or AID setup. :P

Tolerance is a sign of weakness.


#23 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 10 December 2007 - 05:20 AM

RAID is NOT a backup solution. It's only useful if a HDD corrupts/dies

You're right. It's not a backup solution. Nor is it meant to be. "Backup" and "Redundant" are two different things, and that's what you're mixing up. RAID is meant to protect you from hardware failure, not user failure.

RAID-0 is not a true RAID setup and I was not including it. It's not redundant in any sense of the word and shouldn't be called RAID.

If you've decided that you're not willing to call RAID-0 "RAID", I can understand that logic, but you can't very well expect everyone else to know you're making that assumption without voicing it. I mean it's called RAID-0. We're not exactly talking quantum physics here...
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#24 Waco

Waco

    Lab Rat 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 10 December 2007 - 06:15 AM

If you've decided that you're not willing to call RAID-0 "RAID", I can understand that logic, but you can't very well expect everyone else to know you're making that assumption without voicing it. I mean it's called RAID-0. We're not exactly talking quantum physics here...

I probably should have mentioned it. RAID-0 is not a RAID by definition though (though it's one I might set up on a Mozart case if I had one (yes, that's a veiled attempt to appear on topic (yes, I know this is starting to look like LISP (oh dear God I hate LISP)))).

Tolerance is a sign of weakness.