Reccomendations for RAID config (0, 5 or 0+1?)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

spoofer2

Honorable
Mar 19, 2014
254
0
10,810
i am going to be buying an ssd soon to be my main drive, in addition to the two hdds i already have. they are ide ata 5400 - 40gb, 80gb.

beginner w/ raid. since im gonna have 3 disks im not too concerned about failure, so performance is a priority.

just would like some suggestion as to how to go about this. im assuming i would do either a raid 5 or a raid 0+1 but, i dont know, maybe just the two hdds? (is that even possible)

can i raid 0 the 2 hdds and have all 3 drives work in conjunction?

i dont have a huge amt of apps, im not like an aspiring film director or anything.
 
Solution
S
When you RAID drives, remember that they are all treated as the same drive, so the RAID is built per specs of the slowest, smallest drive. If you care about performance, not about redundancy, do not pair your racecar (SSD), with a tricycle (5400 HDD). There are additional reasons beyond performance to not RAID a SSD with a HDD. The volume image can "rip", as one device is reporting ready to the controller and the other one isn't. After so many in a timeframe, the RAID controller thinks the slow drive is failing and will often flag it for failure within the array. If you have set this to RAID 0 (aka no redundancy), there will be data loss and you will lose whatever is on the array.

If you would like to see a bit more performance...
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

ShadeTreeTech

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2011
95
0
18,660
When you RAID drives, remember that they are all treated as the same drive, so the RAID is built per specs of the slowest, smallest drive. If you care about performance, not about redundancy, do not pair your racecar (SSD), with a tricycle (5400 HDD). There are additional reasons beyond performance to not RAID a SSD with a HDD. The volume image can "rip", as one device is reporting ready to the controller and the other one isn't. After so many in a timeframe, the RAID controller thinks the slow drive is failing and will often flag it for failure within the array. If you have set this to RAID 0 (aka no redundancy), there will be data loss and you will lose whatever is on the array.

If you would like to see a bit more performance out of those 5400 HDDs, sure RAID 0 them, and you will get a nice performance boost. Remember that it will be considered two 40GB drives, so your available disk space with them RAID'd will be a total of 80GB (aka two 40GB drives). Also, there is no redundancy, 1 drive failure means all the data is lost, because the data is written across both disks in a "striped" pattern.

One last point of note. As you are setting up these drives, the configuration for them is different from when they were single drives. This means that any current data on them will be wiped (deleted).

RAID 0+1 would require 4 disks. It's two RAID 0 arrays mirroring each other (2) + (2).
RAID 5 needs 3 disks minimum. It does a bit check (parity) with an offset for redundancy. This allows for failure of any 1 disk, and the disk space is the sum of 2 of the 3 drives, so not as much disk space is lost as a full mirror (which is the sum of 1 disk out of 2).

From the information at hand, I would have your SSD as a single AHCI stand alone disk. Then RAID 0 the pair of slow 5400 HDDs for a performance boost.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
M

mbarnes86

Splendid
Sep 16, 2010
3,839
7
26,965
Hi

you can't effectively mix 2 drives of different sizes in a RAID 0 or 1

RAID can be used to speed up disk access
or to provide safety net in case of disk failure

RAID 0 is for speed (less reliable)
RAID 1 also called mirror for safety
RAID 5 using 3 or more hard disks for safety

(ignoring other RAID and use of intelligent RAID controllers with processors & memory
battery backed memory, Hot Plug etc which cost a lot of money)

no point in using RAID 0 with SSD

For increase in disk access buy a modern hard disk to replace 40 & 80GB drives
It may run at faster speed, it will have larger cache.
( look at specs cache varies from 8MB to 64MB, more is better)
probably consume less energy & run cooler
and you will not have problem of monitoring free space on small 40 & 80 GB drives

how big is your SSD 120GB or 240GB going to be
120GB will do in combination with Hard disk of 500MB or more

I presume you have checked to see if your 40GB & 80GB drives are SATA not PATA
or at least you have 2 SATA connectors available.

regards
Mike Barnes
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

spoofer2

Honorable
Mar 19, 2014
254
0
10,810
you can't effectively mix 2 drives of different sizes in a RAID 0 or 1

im assuming effectively is the key word there, since i gather you can do it, just be a max of 80gb in my instance, which is fine

i have read that mixing hdds of different manufacturers can be glitchy, still so?

the ssd i would get would be either 64gb or 120
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mbarnes86

Splendid
Sep 16, 2010
3,839
7
26,965
Hi

If you are running XP and you are

short of cash get a 60 GB SSD & and a modern hard drive instead of raid on old drives which have passed their design life and could fail at any time

Raid 0 on old 40+80GB gives 80GB but will be unreliable
Data recovery on raid 0 is much more difficult hence expensive

If running Vista or 7 use 120 GB SSD

Regards
Mike Barnes
0
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
171,771
18,133
184,590
Didn't we just have a similar discussion regarding trying to run Windows from a 32GB flash drive?

As asked in the other thread...
What drives do you have, and what do you think the end state should be?

40 & 80GB drives in RAID 0 = an 80GB drive that is begging to die.

A single 500GB or 1TB SATA drive will be faster, safer, and probably cheaper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

spoofer2

Honorable
Mar 19, 2014
254
0
10,810
my understanding of raid was that the only reason risk of failure was more likely...was because there's 1+1 failable drives, not because it "hurts" them. maybe i should have made it more clear from the beginning that my whole goal was to save money, therefore i do not want to buy any more than i have to. money. it's a factor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
171,771
18,133
184,590


A RAID 0 is 3 parts. Drive 1, drive 2, and the RAID software. And if any of the 3 dies....poof, all is lost.
And with 2 old 40 and 80GB drives....that is simply asking to die.

Plus, you're throwing away 1/3 of your already small drive space with those 2 drives.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mbarnes86

Splendid
Sep 16, 2010
3,839
7
26,965
Hi
If you can afford a SSD then you will save money by buying one modern hard disk instead
Reliability is more important than initial cost

Drives of 40 or 80 GB are very old and likely to fail soon
Which is why we are advising you against using them for raid

Regards
Mike Barnes
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
USAFRet

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
171,771
18,133
184,590
We all understand the money issue. No one likes to spend more than necessary.
But there is 'being cheap', and 'being cheap to the point of not working right'.

So...in your various threads, we've seen a multitude of drives.
32GB flash, 40GB, 80GB, a new SSD.

One more time....what do you actually have, what do you plan to buy (all of it incl new motherboard), and what do you want the end state to be?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

spoofer2

Honorable
Mar 19, 2014
254
0
10,810
ok. im not concerned about any lost data. i (obviously) am not a guy who has 18 tbs of media under his desk. any important stuff i will put on the ssd. and the rest is like driving an old car. yeah, its a p.o.s., but if its runnin, why not just drive it til it dies.

and im just using my old case and psu and said drives and getting new mobo ram and cpu......

if you must know ive already made up my mind that im going to raid 0 the two hdds until i can replace them. and if they go before i do, so be it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom