Guide to the common implementations of RAID

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi guys,

I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.

RAIDers of the lost Archives:
http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php

Thank you.

Dave
8 answers Last reply
More about guide common implementations raid
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    dave.hunt@gmail.com wrote:

    > Hi guys,
    >
    > I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
    > mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
    > grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
    > I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
    > tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
    > and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.
    >
    > RAIDers of the lost Archives:
    > http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php
    >
    > Thank you.

    Your explanation of 2, 3, and 4 is pretty sketchy and doesn't give any notin
    why one would want to use one of those levels, and you entirely ignored
    RAID 6, which is available both commercially implemented in hardware and as
    GPLed software.

    > Dave

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    My intention was to introduce the most common implementations of RAID
    to users without any previous knowledge. As levels 2, 3, and 4 involve
    methods broadly described in my guide I didn't feel it necessary to go
    in depth. Also, a long guide can be rather off putting for users new to
    the subject, which is why I included resource links for anyone desiring
    more information.

    As for RAID 6, I'm not familiar with it. Ignorance is bliss. ;)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Thanks for your really useful feedback. I must punish myself endlessly
    for that typo... if only 3 and 2 were even further apart from each
    other on my keyboard!

    </sarcasm>
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    dave.hunt@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
    > mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
    > grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
    > I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
    > tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
    > and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.
    >
    > RAIDers of the lost Archives:
    > http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > Dave

    To quote from your page:

    "A minimum of three drives is required for RAID level 0."

    Say no more. I suggest you withdraw your site. I didn't bother to read
    on.


    Odie
    --

    RetroData
    Data Recovery Experts
    www.retrodata.co.uk
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Odie Ferrous wrote:

    > dave.hunt@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> Hi guys,
    >>
    >> I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
    >> mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
    >> grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
    >> I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
    >> tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
    >> and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.
    >>
    >> RAIDers of the lost Archives:
    >> http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>
    >> Dave
    >
    > To quote from your page:
    >
    > "A minimum of three drives is required for RAID level 0."
    >
    > Say no more. I suggest you withdraw your site. I didn't bother to read
    > on.

    You clearly read it more carefully than I did. I didn't even find it
    interesting enough to be worth that level of scrutiny.

    > Odie

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Thanks for your really useful feedback. I must punish myself endlessly
    > for that typo... if only 3 and 2 were even further apart from each
    > other on my keyboard!

    Bringing an obvious and critical mistake to your attention was indeed useful
    feedback, even if you are too thin-skinned to realize it.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Dave wrote:

    > My intention was to introduce the most common implementations of RAID
    > to users without any previous knowledge.

    The RAID wiki does that already. Not the wikipedia entry, but the RAID
    wiki--google that.

    > As levels 2, 3, and 4 involve
    > methods broadly described in my guide I didn't feel it necessary to go
    > in depth.

    The devil is in the details. Each has its advantages and its limitations
    and its hardware and software requirements. 2 basically doesn't exist. 3
    and 4 are different from 5 in ways that have an effect on performance and
    complexity of implementation.

    > Also, a long guide can be rather off putting for users new to
    > the subject, which is why I included resource links for anyone desiring
    > more information.

    It doesn't have to be "a long guide" to give an idea of why there are
    different levels. You give the impression that 2,3,4, and 5 are
    interchangeable parts.

    > As for RAID 6, I'm not familiar with it. Ignorance is bliss.

    Not if you need redundancy even with a failed drive and can't afford one of
    the "+1" variants..

    > ;)

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    It was the way in which is was brought to my attention that I
    addressed. It was an obvious and critical mistake, and I was also
    alerted to it by two other people. Both simply corrected me, none felt
    the need to state they didn't bother reading on, or suggest I withdraw
    the site - a totally ludicrous suggestion.

    Thanks for you input though. I didn't mean to be totally negative to
    positive feedback, hence my use of sarcasm.
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Storage Solutions Storage