Wat the *** is raid? - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2006, 04:09 AM   #11 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 36
Default

Why not just stick in both sata drives, and have them run without raid, you can use something like drive image to make backups of your OP SYS hd if it fails, just get another HD and use the image stored on the second one to make an exact replacement of the one that was there.

This by far seems alot more easier for me to do, and also have full use of storage space for both of my drives.

With drive image, all I do is replace the bad drive, then all I have to do is go to the bios and select boot from cd, stick in the DRIVE IMAGE cd and select what image you would like to restore.

Im back up and running without any problems, within an hours time. Well I do have to got o store and get a replacement drive.

But to each their own.
__________________

alilxmas is offline  
Old 04-19-2006, 04:37 AM   #12 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 559
Default

I've read somewhere that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independant Disks", and not "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". So which one is it? I know, stupid question, but both accronyms could work.
__________________

__________________
AMD64 X2 4400+
DFI Lanparty Ultra-D
2GB Kingston Hyper-X (2-3-2-6)
TT Big Typhoon
eVGA 7900GT KO Superclocked (650/1650)
250GB Maxtor DiamondMax SATA2 HDD
Hiper Type-R 580W SLi PSU
19" Sony Trinitron CRT
magouster is offline  
Old 04-19-2006, 05:34 AM   #13 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tuskatappaja
Theres no point in RAID 0, unless you want to lose all your data
It gives a performance boost, yes, but a failure in 1 drive will lose data on both.
if you get high quality drives (like Seagate's, or Western Digital's) then it shouldn't be a problem.
yes, if you lose one drive, you will lose all your data on the RAID 0 drive.
but you also lose your data on a single drive if it fails anyway.
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 04-19-2006, 05:41 AM   #14 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Tuskatappaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Finland (Winland)
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by apokalipse
if you get high quality drives (like Seagate's, or Western Digital's) then it shouldn't be a problem.
yes, if you lose one drive, you will lose all your data on the RAID 0 drive.
but you also lose your data on a single drive if it fails anyway.
Thats true, but even with my poor math I can tell its more likely to have failure using 2 drives than with 1 drive
__________________
\"Lähimmäisenrakkaus on huoraamista!\"
Tuskatappaja is offline  
Old 04-19-2006, 05:56 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Hmm what sort of performance increase are we talking about with RAID 0, is it worth it for gamers who want quick swap times and game load times?
__________________
AMD 4200+ X2 OC 2.3Ghz
Club Nvidia 7800 GTX 256megs OC 540/1350
Asus A832n Delux MB
40 gig WD Raptor
300 gig WD Sata 2
3dmark2005 = 8652
leeslangley is offline  
Old 04-19-2006, 08:13 AM   #16 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
MrCoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,858
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by magouster
I've read somewhere that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independant Disks", and not "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". So which one is it? I know, stupid question, but both accronyms could work.
Both terms are valid, I use the interchangeably.

RAID 0 imo is risky but good if you don't mind a rebuild if a drive fails i.e. if you have no important data.

RAID 1 is fine for redundancy but I think i'd rather just image the drive every week or so, that way you have a backup rather than just a mirror. I.e. if you delete stuff on disk 1 in a mirror set it does from disk 2 as well but if you have the drive imaged you can restore to your last backup.
RAID 1 is really ofr business that needs uninterupted service on a server.


RAID 5 or 10 good stuff but you need lots of drives so more $$
__________________
Intel core I7 920
GA-EX58-UD3R
6GB OCZ platinum 1600
XFX HD4890
Noctua nh-u12p
Corsair HX520
Antec 300
Samsung 1TB F1 Spinpoint
Samsung SM2443BW 24"
MrCoffee is offline  
Old 04-19-2006, 02:32 PM   #17 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by magouster
I've read somewhere that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independant Disks", and not "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". So which one is it? I know, stupid question, but both accronyms could work.
The correct one is "Redundant Array of Independent Disks." Because technically, any raid can have very expensive disks if you'd like.
__________________
NathanM is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 02:47 AM   #18 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
TheOtis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth.
Posts: 1,274
Send a message via AIM to TheOtis
Default

Except for the fact that htier is no correct term. It's either or.
__________________
Back on being mobile - ASUS G551- 15.3" 1080p - Core i7 4710HQ - GTX 860M - 16GB DDR3 1600 - 512GB Samsung 850 Pro - Steam ID: TheOtis
TheOtis is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 07:39 AM   #19 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tuskatappaja
Thats true, but even with my poor math I can tell its more likely to have failure using 2 drives than with 1 drive
how much greater?

I would only consider it a big risk if I was running something like a heavily used file server, and even then only if I was using not-so-good quality drives (for example, Maxtor)
if I could help it, I would have the server run on Seagate drives only, or maybe Western Digital.

I like my Seagate drives, I have 3 of them, and I have had no problems at all with them.
in fact, Seagate have the lowest failure rate, followed by Western Digital.

man, I must sound like I work for Seagate
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 09:06 AM   #20 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Tuskatappaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Finland (Winland)
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by leeslangley
Hmm what sort of performance increase are we talking about with RAID 0, is it worth it for gamers who want quick swap times and game load times?
Well if you have SATA Raid integrated to mobo (most of us have)
it will take some processor power to administer the raid, since its not true hardware raid (no raid co-processor), but of course with modern athlon 64/opteron processor its not an big issue.
We are talking about some 3%-5% of processor usage.

Yes the performance increase, it's usually not mindblowing, some 10%-25% but its an increase none the less.

If the hd:s support NCQ (native command queuing) and the controller support it too, you should get better performance.

And of course you should use two exactly same kind of hd:s
(same manufacturer and same model)
you can use others too but another hd might slow down the other.
__________________

__________________
\"Lähimmäisenrakkaus on huoraamista!\"
Tuskatappaja is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.