What RAID Cannot Do - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-18-2006, 12:59 PM   #1 (permalink)
Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
 
Ste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Upon Gleaning Infinity
Posts: 9,577
Send a message via MSN to Ste
Default What RAID Cannot Do

"What RAID Cannot Do
RAID cannot protect the data on the array. A RAID array has one file system. This creates a single point of failure. A RAID array's file system is vulnerable to a wide variety of hazards other than physical disk failure, so RAID cannot defend against these sources of data loss. RAID will not stop a virus from destroying data. RAID will not prevent corruption. RAID will not save data from accidental modification or deletion by the user. RAID does not protect data from hardware failure of any component besides physical disks. RAID does not protect data from natural or man made disaster such as fires and floods. To protect data, data must be backed up to removable media, such as DVD, tape, or an external hard drive, and stored in an off site location. RAID alone will not prevent a disaster, when (not if) it occurs, from turning into data loss. Disaster is not preventable, but backups allow data loss to be prevented.
RAID cannot simplify disaster recovery. When running a single disk, the disk is usually accessible with a generic ATA or SCSI driver built into most operating systems. However, most RAID controllers require specific drivers. Recovery tools that work with single disks on generic controllers will require special drivers to access data on RAID arrays. If these recovery tools are poorly coded and do not allow providing for additional drivers, then a RAID array will probably be inaccessible to that recovery tool.
RAID cannot provide a performance boost in all applications. This statement is especially true with typical desktop application users and gamers. Most desktop applications and games place performance emphasis on the buffer strategy and seek performance of the disk(s). Increasing raw sustained transfer rate shows little gains for desktop users and gamers, as most files that they access are typically very small anyway. Disk striping using RAID-0 increases linear transfer performance, not buffer and seek performance. As a result, disk striping using RAID-0 shows little to no performance gain in most desktop applications and games, although there are exceptions. For desktop users and gamers with high performance as a goal, it is better to buy a faster, bigger, and more expensive single disk than it is to run two slower/smaller drives in RAID-0. Even running the latest, greatest, and biggest drives in RAID-0 is unlikely to boost performance more than 10%, and performance may drop in some access patterns, particularly games.
RAID is not readily moved to a new system. When using a single disk, it is relatively straightforward to move the disk to a new system. Simply connect it to the new system, provided it has the same interface available. However, this is not so easy with a RAID array. A RAID BIOS must be able to read metadata from the array members in order to successfully construct the array and make it accessible to an operating system. Since RAID controller makers use different formats for their metadata (even controllers of different families from the same manufacturer may use incompatible metadata formats) it is virtually impossible to move a RAID array to a different controller. When moving a RAID array to a new system, plans should be made to move the controller as well. With the popularity of motherboard integrated RAID controllers, this is extremely difficult to accomplish. Generally, it is possible to move the RAID array members and controllers as a unit, and software RAID in Linux and Windows Server Products can also workaround this limitation, but software RAID has other limitations (mostly performance related). "

Near the Bottom

I thought this to be interesting, Especially Since a vast majority of People have misconceptions about RAID. Enjoy the Read.
__________________

Ste is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 01:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

This is what backups are for.
__________________

The General is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 01:29 PM   #3 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,010
Default

I didn't read the whole thing but; RAID0 decreases the time it takes to load games up, which I didn't see mentioned in your bit about no real world performance increase.

And people, don't start jumping on the Raptor FTW.

8mb raptor and a RAID 0 array
__________________

Cisco CCNA, Comptia A+, 1/3 through CCNP
Trifid is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 01:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

^ I have two Raptors in RAID 0, I don't even see the loading screen in WolfET anymore. And when playing HL2, the "loading" thing shows for like 2 seconds.

Yeah I'll agree that when I had one raptor installed, a 7200rpm 250gb x 2 RAID 0 was faster but this RAID 0 of Raptors just obliterates anything I've used before.
The General is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 01:47 PM   #5 (permalink)
Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
 
Ste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Upon Gleaning Infinity
Posts: 9,577
Send a message via MSN to Ste
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Trifid
I didn't read the whole thing but; RAID0 decreases the time it takes to load games up, which I didn't see mentioned in your bit about no real world performance increase.

And people, don't start jumping on the Raptor FTW.

8mb raptor and a RAID 0 array
Well they did mention gamming. This is according to Wiki.


If I ever had the money. I would
Couple Hundred SCSI Drives in RAID 100.
That == pwnt.
-Drool- Hrmmm RAID 100. -Drool-
Ste is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 01:54 PM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

Why would you need so much redundancy? I'd stick them all in a big RAID 5.
The General is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 03:21 PM   #7 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,010
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The General
Why would you need so much redundancy? I'd stick them all in a big RAID 5.
Except for RAID5 is slow?
__________________

Cisco CCNA, Comptia A+, 1/3 through CCNP
Trifid is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 04:32 PM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

Since when?
The General is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 05:16 PM   #9 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,010
Default

Quote:
wiki
RAID 5 implementations suffer from poor performance when faced with a workload which includes many writes which are smaller than the capacity of a single stripe
It wouldn't be my choice of RAID. I don't know all the RAIDs but I think it is the slowest one for writing.
__________________

Cisco CCNA, Comptia A+, 1/3 through CCNP
Trifid is offline  
Old 09-18-2006, 05:20 PM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

The RAID5 at work is fast, I don't know what they are talking about.
__________________

The General 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 04:44 PM.


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