Reliability of Raid 0
- Thread starter Qwert
- Start date
- Status
A RAID 0 is unreliable based on the fact that if one hard drive fails, the data on both drives becomes unusable. In reality, a RAID 0 isn't really a true RAID array as it is not fault tolerant.
The chances of a hard drive failing are unpredictable, but a RAID 0 isn't totally unreliable. I have found the Western Digital Raptor drives to be quite foolproof, I have installed a decent two dozen of them over the past year and I have yet to recieve one compliant regarding failure. The same can't be said for other drives I've installed...
If fault tolerance and data access are crucial to you, consider a RAID 0+1, however that gets pricey.
The chances of a hard drive failing are unpredictable, but a RAID 0 isn't totally unreliable. I have found the Western Digital Raptor drives to be quite foolproof, I have installed a decent two dozen of them over the past year and I have yet to recieve one compliant regarding failure. The same can't be said for other drives I've installed...
If fault tolerance and data access are crucial to you, consider a RAID 0+1, however that gets pricey.
I was thinking about doing Raid 0+1 but couldn't find that anywhere, do you know of a place that has it?
Also are the Maxtor DiamondMax Plus's relaible if you possibly know, according to anandtech.com there isn't much of an increase of speed with Raid 0 as apposed to no raid on Raptors...
Also are the Maxtor DiamondMax Plus's relaible if you possibly know, according to anandtech.com there isn't much of an increase of speed with Raid 0 as apposed to no raid on Raptors...
The only reason people claim Raid0 is dangerous, is because what will happen if your drive fails. I have dual 36GB WD Raptors running on Raid0.. My friend has the samething, but dual 74GB.
Dual WD Raptors with 10000rpm serial sata owns. Serial SATA is 150, but my system runs at 183. This summer i will be getting another 2 WD Raptors for my new system. That should beat a none Raid0 SCSI drive.
Dual WD Raptors with 10000rpm serial sata owns. Serial SATA is 150, but my system runs at 183. This summer i will be getting another 2 WD Raptors for my new system. That should beat a none Raid0 SCSI drive.
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
gaara said:
Same with a single HD configuration: If 1 crashes you loose all data
Ofcourse the change of data loss with RAID0 is higher. But a blown HD means total data loss in both cases.
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
Yes. The "complicated" way of saving the data makes it more likely to crash, and the fact that you have 2 drives.
Codeine said:
Bull. You arent pushing 183mb/s through 2 raptors. You're going to get like 80-90mb/s max sustained throughput off raptors.
Hell with 2 300gb 16mb cache maxtors i was only getting sustained throughput of 110mb/s.
.....
To answer your question about raid..
raid 0 = striping, it's only as reliable as the harddrives are (one dies, bye bye data)
raid 1 = mirroring, it clones writes to another drive, causing an exact image of the first time. You only get 1 hd of space to use.
raid 0+1 = striping and mirroring, requires 4 drives. If your raid card doesn't have this option then you can create 2 raid 0 logical drives (2 partitions, 4 drives). In windows you then raid the 2 raid 0 arrays together into a raid 1 array. Its messy, but it works.
Qwert said:
The only difference is that you get faster throughput to your drives. Instead of 50mb/s (standard benchmark for 7200rpm 8mb cache drive) you'll get like 75.. It also turns the 2 drives into 1. Works well as a cheap upgrade.
- Status