120 ssd plus raid 0(I think) and 2 2tb hdd

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Shaunzy

Reputable
Mar 26, 2014
42
0
4,530
I can't remember what raid config, but its basically the one where it mirrors the other drive and adds a performance boost.

My question, is would it be more effective to run 2 2tb 7200 hdd drives on a raid 0, and just use a 64 or a 120 ssd for the OS and caching?

Or just get one 2 tb drive and a ssd and call it a day
 
Solution
Rogue Leader


In many years of doing this stuff I've seen more drive failures than corruption. Corruption you can often fix, drives not so much. Now arguably these days they are far more reliable, but to...
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

Shaunzy

Reputable
Mar 26, 2014
42
0
4,530
Raid 0 is the mirror correct. Where if you have a 2 2tb drives it means you only have a total of 2 tb. Can't remember the redundancy config, is that where you use the other drive as cache.

To clarify, your raid 1 config has a total of how much space? What are the size of you hdd's

Anyway, I'm trying to see if that will give a performance boost along with the ssd caching.

Sorry for confusion
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

boosted1g

Titan
Jun 12, 2013
14,846
8
74,965
1 SSD will outperform even an 8 disk array at reading scattered files.

Single SSD for OS/Programs (120 or 250gb) and a magnetic hard drive for large files/media or backups and call it a day.



Also FYI. There is stripe and there is mirror for array. The mirror is raid 1 and that is for redundancy, thus you have 2 duplicate drives; this is great for drive failure but useless to help OS/File corruption. The stripe is the performance that is Raid 0, this allows you to basically double the speed and merge the two drives together; big downfall to this though is that if one drive gets corrupted or fails, then you loose everything.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rogue Leader

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Dec 22, 2014
32,773
2,837
113,640


RAID 0 provides the best performance as it uses both drives as an array (so if you have 2 2TB drives you will have 4TB) however if 1 drive fails you're SOL.

RAID 1 is a mirror, 2 2TB drives would be 2 TB of space. This provides both redundancy and sometimes performance although not as fast as RAID 0. The advantage is if 1 drive fails you can just plug in a replacement with no data loss.

Using the SSD as your OS drive with your hard drives in either configuration provides the best performance vs using the drive as a cache.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

boosted1g

Titan
Jun 12, 2013
14,846
8
74,965
Due to the SSD drive using flash memory and thus has near instant seek times, it will out perform any raid setup of magnetic hard drives at loading an OS and running programs because the magnetic drives have to spin to a file, stop, spin to another file, and so on and so forth.

A large enough disk array can beat a single SSD in say transferring a large movie file where the data is sequential. For read/write multiple small files though the SSD will always win.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

boosted1g

Titan
Jun 12, 2013
14,846
8
74,965
I would much rather just run a backup of the drive vs having a raid 1.

If something gets corrupted on one drive with raid 1 then both drives are corrupted.

Looking at the pros vs cons you have a lot more to loose vs what you have to gain going raid 1 over scheduled backups.


Raid 1 Pros:
Almost no system overhead
Easier recovery vs a file or image backup

Raid 1 Cons:
If corruption happens on one drive then both drives are corrupted. Thus it has no ability to recover a file.
Cant use the unused space on the 2nd drive for anything else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Shaunzy

Reputable
Mar 26, 2014
42
0
4,530
Now concern two would be noise. I almost want try 4 2 tb hdd and a 2 64ssd's

Does ssd caching still work if you set them in a raid 1?

So basically raid 1 for the 2 64 ssd. And raid 1 for 2 2tb hdd's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Shaunzy

Reputable
Mar 26, 2014
42
0
4,530
The reason for the raid 1 config is for a performance boost on the hdd. What i don't know is how the ssd caching really works. The sad can store the cachefiles and tell both hard drives to fetch files, half from one half from the other, both looking for the file fragments at 7200.

It seems that it would work. May not be a point in raid 1 on the sad though.

Anyway, I think I'm good, going to do some digging on raid 1 and sad caching.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rogue Leader

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Dec 22, 2014
32,773
2,837
113,640


In many years of doing this stuff I've seen more drive failures than corruption. Corruption you can often fix, drives not so much. Now arguably these days they are far more reliable, but to me the redundancy is worth it.

Critical files I still do backups on of course.



See above, redundancy to me is worth it. On top of that once my drives reach a certain age I like to replace them, This is because I have seen HD failure rates in my experience both in work and personally exponentially increase after 5 years. With RAID 1 I can plug in a new drive, sync is seamlessly, add another, and then pull the old 2 out to be retired.





To me its worth it for the reasons I mentioned above. Performance wise its not worth it, but to be able to swap out a failed drive seamlessly like that is worth its weight in gold to me. I don't believe you can do SSD caching with RAID 1. I wouldn't waste the time to RAID 1 SSD's, Hard drives are far more likely to fail which is why I do this (people do RAID 1 SSD's in business environments). Now RAID 0 SSD's is common and can give you an additional speed boost.

As for noise I can barely hear them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
S

Shaunzy

Reputable
Mar 26, 2014
42
0
4,530
Yeah, I can see the drive failures. I thought there would have been a performance boost though. Cool, thanks all

I'm going to get 2 drives and raid 1 them. That's too much data to lose for a simple hundred dollar fix.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

ss202sl

Glorious
May 23, 2012
8,431
35
44,190
If you're just talking about applications(which can easily be reloaded), and data, the mirror is a waste. A backup would be a much better option. I've seen too many times where people delete stuff, overwrite stuff, or a corruption, In these cases, a mirror is useless,and the only option is a restore from backiup.
If you want to have a mirror, fine, but it doesn't negate the need for backups.
 
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