View Full Version : Couple questions about raid 1 and raid 0
megadeath900
10-08-07, 11:30 PM
What is the performance difference between raid 0 and raid 1?
With raid 1, if one drive fails your partition you don't loose the data right?
If it creates duplicates of everything won't writing take twice as long?
So if you have say 1000gb across 4 hard drives raid 1, partiton a 250gb windows partition and then a 250gb storage or whatever, is that the max because it has to create duplicates of everything? So if 1 drive fails, won't a peice of every thing stored be missing?
thideras
10-08-07, 11:33 PM
RAID1: 1 drive fails, RAID keep working. No, it does not take twice as long to write as it writes at the same time.
No, your thinking of RAID1 incorrectly ;)
If you have 4 drives in a RAID 1 and they are each 250gb, you would have 1 250gb drive available for Windows, the other would be copies of that.
megadeath900
10-08-07, 11:38 PM
RAID1: 1 drive fails, RAID keep working. No, it does not take twice as long to write as it writes at the same time.
No, your thinking of RAID1 incorrectly ;)
If you have 4 drives in a RAID 1 and they are each 250gb, you would have 1 250gb drive available for Windows, the other would be copies of that.
So, how much maximum capacity do you lose compared to using raid 0?
SeasonalEclipse
10-08-07, 11:40 PM
Raid 0= all hard drive space combined raid 1= only the size of one drive, the rest are copies.
megadeath900
10-08-07, 11:51 PM
Raid 0= all hard drive space combined raid 1= only the size of one drive, the rest are copies.
oooooooooo, now I see why raid 1 is so unpopular. Wait... so that means if you had 4x250gb with raid 1 you would only have 250gb? What if you had raid 1 with 2x250gb?
thideras
10-08-07, 11:59 PM
oooooooooo, now I see why raid 1 is so unpopular. Wait... so that means if you had 4x250gb with raid 1 you would only have 250gb? What if you had raid 1 with 2x250gb?If you have any amount of hdd's (atleast 2), it will ALWAYS be the size of ONE of the drives for RAID1 ;)
megadeath900
10-09-07, 12:48 PM
If you have any amount of hdd's (atleast 2), it will ALWAYS be the size of ONE of the drives for RAID1 ;)
Oh, so raid 0 and non raid backups ftw eh?
Oh, so raid 0 and non raid backups ftw eh?
RAID 0+1 is maybe what you are after.
For example:
4 drives, lets say each 250gig.
the drives are in two pairs that are in RAID 0, giving you two 500gig volumes.
These two volumes are then placed in RAID 1 to give redundancy.
The result?
500gigs of space with the speed of RAID 0 and where one drive can fail and you do not lose data
megadeath900
10-09-07, 03:38 PM
RAID 0+1 is maybe what you are after.
For example:
4 drives, lets say each 250gig.
the drives are in two pairs that are in RAID 0, giving you two 500gig volumes.
These two volumes are then placed in RAID 1 to give redundancy.
The result?
500gigs of space with the speed of RAID 0 and where one drive can fail and you do not lose data
With that would I have the speed of 4 hard drives in a raid or 2?
If its just two, I would probably just be better off raiding 4 small hard drives on raid 0 just for windows if I was paranoid of loosing all my backup data and then not raiding larger harddrives?
With that would I have the speed of 4 hard drives in a raid or 2?
If its just two, I would probably just be better off raiding 4 small hard drives on raid 0 just for windows if I was paranoid of loosing all my backup data and then not raiding larger harddrives?
That is correct, you would have the speed of two drives...
Yep, that's a good idea, but just remember to do backups...
Zerix01
10-10-07, 05:18 AM
With that would I have the speed of 4 hard drives in a raid or 2?
If its just two, I would probably just be better off raiding 4 small hard drives on raid 0 just for windows if I was paranoid of loosing all my backup data and then not raiding larger harddrives?
I know people will be after me for saying this but.... I just setup a RAID5 array last night with 3 500GB drives. This, for me anyway, was a good balance of speed, storage, and redundancy. Speed because most data will be striped across all three disks thus not bogging down any one drive during a large write, storage because with the three disks I still get the full capacity of two of the drives vs RAID10 (1+0) where I would need a fourth drive to get the same capacity, and redundancy because if one drive fails the array will still work.
I know people will be after me for saying this but.... I just setup a RAID5 array last night with 3 500GB drives. This, for me anyway, was a good balance of speed, storage, and redundancy. Speed because most data will be striped across all three disks thus not bogging down any one drive during a large write, storage because with the three disks I still get the full capacity of two of the drives vs RAID10 (1+0) where I would need a fourth drive to get the same capacity, and redundancy because if one drive fails the array will still work.
Yeah if you don't need all the performance, and if the RAID controller supports it, RAID 5 is great!
megadeath900
10-12-07, 01:17 AM
That is correct, you would have the speed of two drives...
Yep, that's a good idea, but just remember to do backups...
Well, I've lived with a raptor for the past few years, I'm used to moving everything from my windows installation to other drives.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.