overclocknewb Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/c...pts/rel_Rel.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderChicken Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 i wouldnt worry to much... at my office our server has been runnig raid-5 for 2 years straight the onlyt hing weve had to repleace on it drive wise is the raid controller. i dont have raid-0 setup at my house but i know at our office we have a machine that is raid-0 and its been running for about 6 months now with no hdd problems i dont really see what the big deal about raid-0 is i mean putting drives in raid doesnt lower the life span but thats just from my experience Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sykocus Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 I only skimmed the article, but it sounds like the reason i don't run raid 0. Its just too fragile. one of the first times i had an array set up one of the drives had a little "hickup". It was fine afterward but i had to rebuild the whole array and lost everything on _both_ drives. Not sure how realisticly accurate this is, but imagine on a raid 0 array every file you have being split in half. each half is stored on a different drive. So if only one drive failes, all your data is lost. You can always run a raid 0+1 arry, but that reqires double the HD space, or if you get a nforce4 motherboard raid 5 is a good option. i dont really see what the big deal about raid-0 is i mean putting drives in raid doesnt lower the life span but thats just from my experience 395149[/snapback] raid 0 doesn't shorten the life of the drives, its mearly doubles your chances of experiencing a failure, because only 1 drive has to fail to bring the whole array down. Its like if you have 2 dice...your odds of rolling say a 5 are double what they would be, if you only had 1 die, triple if you had 3, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNUco2007 Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 i use raid0 for my system disk, and anything valuable to me (i.e. music, pictures, etc) i have on a 3rd separate disk. i can replace games and programs and stuff, and fact is thats the only stuff that will benefit from the raid0 array. so if one dies, im not worried about loosing anything important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderChicken Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 if you want hdd speed i would just get one 10k sata drive and thats fast enough raid-0 is cool if you have the extra money get 2x10k drives but if not then who cares i mean i would get raid-0 once i get my other upgrades done but its not my main upgrade. if i was going for reliabilty instead of speed i would do raid-5, and this year sata will be hot swappable which will bascially make scsi drives "old" but theylle still be widly used in server's raid is not meant for desktops its meant for server's because servers need pretty much double everything every high end server ive seen has double everyting, cept mobo, dual procs, dual psu's, riad-5 a backup raid controller its just meant so when your hardware goes down your down for 5 minutes lets say instead of 5 days for the part to be shipped for a desktop it doesnt make a differance in raid so its just what you can afford i would say Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendellrt Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 What is RAID 5? I am using RAID 1 right now for data security, as it says in my sig. I have only heard of RAID 5 lately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP24 Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 I constantly had problems with my RAID 0. You'll notice in my sig that I no longer run RAID 0. I had to reload Windows probably about every 6 weeks. It just kept crashing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuclear Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 What is RAID 5? I am using RAID 1 right now for data security, as it says in my sig. I have only heard of RAID 5 lately. 395158[/snapback] RAID5 is a "backup" version of RAID. If you have 2 hdds in RAID0, you only see one drive, because the second is an exact copy of the first. If you lose your primary hard drive, the second one will have everything and you will not lose any data or time. RAID5 is very popular in work-place envoirnments. All of my servers here at work are on RAID5, but I cannot risk a data loss. BTW: I'm not sure if the NF4 version of RAID5 will support this, but in most servers running RAID5, when you stick a new hard drive in, it will automatically be "rebuilt" to match the other drive. It's like an auto backup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendellrt Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 RAID5 is a "backup" version of RAID. If you have 2 hdds in RAID0, you only see one drive, because the second is an exact copy of the first. If you lose your primary hard drive, the second one will have everything and you will not lose any data or time. RAID5 is very popular in work-place envoirnments. All of my servers here at work are on RAID5, but I cannot risk a data loss. BTW: I'm not sure if the NF4 version of RAID5 will support this, but in most servers running RAID5, when you stick a new hard drive in, it will automatically be "rebuilt" to match the other drive. It's like an auto backup. 395164[/snapback] So isn't that the same thing as RAID 1? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 If you have 2 hdds in RAID0, you only see one drive, because the second is an exact copy of the first. If you lose your primary hard drive, the second one will have everything and you will not lose any data or time. whoops! Nucular.... In raid 0 yes you only see one drive. However,(and this is where nucular was wrong) In raid 0 the second HDD is not the axact copy of the first, instead it is part of the complete drive(the two drives are together one drive. So in raid 0 if one of the hard drives goes bad, then your screwed and will have to start over. Because raid 0 is for speed, and raid 1 is for redunancy(backups), raid 1, is for redundancy, it uses 2 HDD and if one goes bad the other is a copy if you have 4 HDDs you can do raid 0+1, which is kinda like raid 5, it has the benifits of redundancy and speed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sykocus Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 So isn't that the same thing as RAID 1? 395188[/snapback] in raid 1 you have 2 drives storing identical copies of the same thing. in raid 5 you have 2 drives striping (like raid 0) and single another drive that keeps a sort of "backup" of the data thats on the other two drives. Its sort of a hybred of raid 0 and a single drive. in raid raid 1 is 2 drives that keep mirror copies of the same data. raid 0+1 is simply running raid 0 and raid 1 simultaniusly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
overclocknewb Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 After having read that Anandtech article, I'm going with RAID1 instead. My computer is plenty fast as it is, and I'm more interested in reliability and disk space than I am speed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now