Author Topic: Question about ... RAID and ARRAY  (Read 722 times)

Offline jonnyb

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2002, 02:30:57 PM »
RAID stands for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks -- or if you'd like, Redundant Array of Independent Disks.

RAID level 0 is really not redundant in any way, so purists will argue that by definition it really isn't RAID.  All RAID 0 offers is data striping.  This is a process where multiple drives are used to store information, by storing it in a "stripe" of a defined size on each drive.  If a file is larger than the stripe, it is then stored on the next drive in the array.

A benefit of this type of setup is that the data transfer is equal to the transfer rate of the slowest drive, multiplied by the total number of drives.  A problem with this setup is that if one drive goes bad, all data/files on the entire system, are lost.

RAID 1 is mirroring of one drive onto another.  This type of setup is very useful for managing data, especially for things like webservers and database servers.  The key benefit of this RAID setup is its redundancy.  However, where it lacks is write time to disk.  Also, it is an expensive solution because you have to buy at least 2 disks to store the amount of data that could fit on one.

The best of both worlds is RAID 0+1 (also known as RAID 10).  It combines striping and mirroring.  Typically, this is a 4 drive setup, where either you stripe the mirrors, or mirror the stripes.  It offers the advantages of RAID 0, but has the disadvantages of RAID 1.

There is also RAID 3, RAID 4, RAID 5 and RAID 6.  Since these are generally not offered on typical controllers (ie, ones that come on your motherboard, or those you get at Best Buy), I won't go into detail on them.

Offline Dingbat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1004
      • http://mysite.verizon.net/res0v1l1
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2002, 02:32:32 PM »
Right-on, just like it's described in the first link I posted.

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2002, 09:00:19 PM »
I saw a benchmarked 65% speed increase using RAID-0 over a single drive, and a definate noticable "seat of the pants" speedup in all windows activity.  Everything, bootup, virus scans, program loads, etc. goes faster with RAID-0.

If you use 4 identical drives in a RAID 0+1 setup, the RAID 0 speedup will pretty much counteract the RAID 1 slowdown.  

The downside of course with RAID 0, as others have said, is that if either one of the two drives crashes, you lose 100% of the data.  So don't keep anything important on a RAID 0 setup without creating periodic and frequent backups.  You may also want to ensure your drives have adequate cooling.  In my system I have 2 case fans blowing air directly over all my hard drives so I have done all I can towards protecting myself against the drives crashing.

That, and I have a third hard drive I use to back up critical files plus I occasionally burn a CD with my email archives on it.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline bloom25

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Since we're on the subject...
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2002, 11:02:13 AM »
Those of you running SCSI drives under Windows XP (non-SP1) are not getting anywhere near top disk performance.  There's a bug with the SCSI drivers under XP.  Service Pack 1 supposedly fixes this.

Raid 0 arrays are generally faster than a single 15k rpm SCSI drive.  The problem is that should one drive fail, you've lost all your data.

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2002, 11:16:21 AM »
bloom25,..how dare you!  XP is the best OS Microsoft has ever shipped!  There are no bugs,....only features. :D

I remember doing an install of XP a couple of months ago, and went to the MS update site only to find a new IDE driver.  

Sheesh,..all these years and they can still find a way to mess up something that has been a part of every version of Windows since W95.
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Hussein

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2002, 01:09:59 PM »
Bloom25: If the performance bug you're talking about is missing scsi write cache setting in XP (common problem), it can be fixed easily with a change in registry. No need to install that infamous SP because of that.

Offline bloom25

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2002, 03:21:00 PM »
That's true Hussein, the problem is that some software isn't going to run right if you just fix it in the registry.  (LOL, at least M$ claims that.)

Offline qts

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 782
      • None yet
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2002, 03:14:21 AM »
Any speed lost in writing to a mirror set should be more than regained in the reading - simply because most people do a lot more reading than writing.

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2002, 01:45:07 PM »
I had a single disk server crash on me when I came back from my honeymoon - RAID 1 all the way from now on. I bought 2x60GB IBM IDE disks and they are whirling happily away now.

A question for the gurus: I have a PCI SCSI card (non-RAID), two 18Gig disks but the mobo's RAID is IDE... It won't work, will it?

Offline qts

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 782
      • None yet
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2002, 02:23:12 PM »
Lynx, you can get software SCSI RAID under XP Pro, but it's complex. You're best off getting a SCSI RAID card - check ebay.

For those whose interest I have tickled, here's how to get software disk mirroring under XP Pro:

Install NT4 and create a mirror set.
Upgrade the NT4 installation to XP.

Offline Dingbat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1004
      • http://mysite.verizon.net/res0v1l1
Question about ... RAID and ARRAY
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2002, 06:20:55 PM »
NO NO NO
software raid sucks
ask anyone

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
The next Microshaft OS?
« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2002, 09:33:12 PM »
Or was this the original product concept for that bloated POS called XP?  :D