RAID0 and Raid 1 Questions

ModMonster

Reputable
Aug 31, 2015
433
0
4,960
I don't plan on working on this for a while, but it would be a good investment. I am really just curious.

Currently I have 1 OCZ ARC 100 240GB and a Seagate Barracuda 3.5" 1TB 7200RPM. I have Windows installed on the OCZ along with a few games and programs.

Is it possible to setup my SSD in RAID0 (2 OCZ ARC 100 240GB) to total up to 480GB and move my OS and all of my games to the RAID0 SSDs. (This should be read of 800MB-1000MBs) And then keep my important files on my Seagate Barracuda. But this is the part I am not sure about. Could I setup two WD Blues 3GB each in a RAID1? These drives would be able to back up the 2 SSDs and my HARD DRIVE. And if I did this configuration, would it slow performance of the 2 SSDs? Thanks
 
Solution


So...
The OS and applications on the SSD
An image of that drive on the HDD

If the HDD fails...hey...the original stuff still lives on the SSD. Get a new HDD and redo it.
Or..if the SSD fails, reconstitute that to a replacement SSD, from...
In theory, raid-0 is for performance, raid-1 iss for reliability.

In actuality neither does the job.

Raid-0 has been over hyped as a performance enhancer.
Sequential benchmarks do look wonderful, but the real world does not seem to deliver the indicated performance benefits for most
desktop users. The reason is, that sequential benchmarks are coded for maximum overlapped I/O rates.
It depends on reading a stripe of data simultaneously from each raid-0 member, and that is rarely what we do.
The OS does mostly small random reads and writes, so raid-0 is of little use there.
There are some apps that will benefit. They are characterized by reading large files in a sequential overlapped manner.

Here is a study using ssd devices in raid-0.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html
Spoiler... no benefit at all.
The value of raid-1 and it's variants like raid-5 is that you can recover from a drive failure quickly. It is for servers that can not tolerate any interruption.
Modern hard drives have a advertised mean time to failure on the order of 500,000+ hours. That is something like 50 years. SSD's are similar.
With raid-1 you are protecting yourself from specifically a hard drive failure. Not from other failures such as viruses, operator error,
malware, raid controller failure fire, theft, etc.
For that, you need external backup. If you have external backup, and can tolerate some recovery time, you do not need raid-1

My suggestion is to use a single 500gb ssd for the os and performance related items.
Use your 3tb blues for storage of large files such as videos.

For backup, buy an external usb backup device.

 

ModMonster

Reputable
Aug 31, 2015
433
0
4,960
Ok, so you are saying RAID0 is pointless? I currently have a 1 OCZ (I was planning to get another one to use RAID0). And you are saying RAID1 is pointless too? How about this:

How about this: I just get another TB Seagate to backup one SSD and my files. RAID1
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator


The word and concept RAID...put that out of your mind.
RAID 0 or RAID 1....mostly useless for a residential situation.

RAID 1 is useful in a business situation, where you need absolute 24/7 uptime.
If a drive dies, the webserver will limp on with one drive until you can get it back up and running.
Downtime for a webstore = lost revenue.
Downtime in a residential situation = an hour or two where I can't play a game while I fix things.

And any business that has their system running on a RAID 1 also has an actual backup.


All you need do is:
have a recurring backup of your personal files. Several applications can do this easily.
have a recurring backup of the OS drive. Many current Imaging applications can do this, on a schedule you set up.
 

ModMonster

Reputable
Aug 31, 2015
433
0
4,960
Yeah, but the reason I wanted RAID1 is because if my HDD failed, I wouldn't have to go pay some loony toon to fix it. I would just go on Newegg and by a new HDD to replace the one that just broke and not loose 1 file.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator


And there are much easier, and actually safer, ways of doing that, other than a RAID 1.
 


How would raid-1 help you if:

You contracted a virus or your files were held for ransom via ransomware?
You had a fire and destroyed your pc?
Your motherboard with the raid controller failed?

And...

In the cases above, you would have been saved if you had external backup.
 

ModMonster

Reputable
Aug 31, 2015
433
0
4,960
What would you suggest? I don't want external drives. They just make everything look trashy. Like, if there is an empty spot in my case... I just want to optimize that. And how can I to a backup via Windows? Or do I have to download something...
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator


For a whole disk image, on a schedule:
http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.aspx
Full and/or incremental

For copying individual folders or files to another drive:
SyncBack Free
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator


Because that only helps in the case of an actual drive fail.
A proper back up will save your data in the case of a drive fail, or accidental deletion, or virus, or other weirdness.

Sure, you can do a RAID 1 (mirror). But do not rely on that as a 'backup'.
 

ModMonster

Reputable
Aug 31, 2015
433
0
4,960


Ok, I will backup as you say, but what will happen if my HDD Fails and I loose all data on my HDD. Then I will loose my SSD backup and my important files.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator


So...
The OS and applications on the SSD
An image of that drive on the HDD

If the HDD fails...hey...the original stuff still lives on the SSD. Get a new HDD and redo it.
Or..if the SSD fails, reconstitute that to a replacement SSD, from the image that lives on the HDD.

The only way for both drives to fail at the same time is catastrophic fail of the whole PC. Fire, flood, lightning, PSU fail and meltdown...
But this is why people have a backup on an external drive, or another PC, or offsite completely.
 
Solution