is RAID really useful??

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hi I am reading about RAID and I have found some MotherBoard are
supporting it (but you have to pay more) But now I wonder why do we
need Raid?? is it really used and useful featrue?? why I am saying
this is becuase

1) Raid 1 is mirroring right? but if a file is corrupted then it will
be stored in both drivers as a corrupted file.. But Raid is useful if
one harddrive mechanically die then i can use the other.. but this is
not going to happen that frequently!!

2) Raid 0 is striping.. well if there are 2 files, for example
file1.txt (in HD1) and file2.txt (in HD2) and lets say my email
software need to read file1.txt and my MSWords wants to read file2.txt
then these 2 software will be able to access these 2 files at the same
time. If not for Raid and we have only 1 HD then, first the OS will
try to access file1.txt and give it to email software and then the OS
will try to access file2.txt and try to give it to MSwords and this
will take longger time, I am right??

Thanks
23 answers Last reply
More about raid useful
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <fd7d27e7.0404230917.527f3949
    @posting.google.com>, esara123@hotmail.com says...
    > Hi I am reading about RAID and I have found some MotherBoard are
    > supporting it (but you have to pay more) But now I wonder why do we
    > need Raid?? is it really used and useful featrue?? why I am saying
    > this is becuase
    >
    > 1) Raid 1 is mirroring right? but if a file is corrupted then it will
    > be stored in both drivers as a corrupted file.. But Raid is useful if
    > one harddrive mechanically die then i can use the other.. but this is
    > not going to happen that frequently!!
    >

    The key to deciding whether to RAID1 or not is what is
    your time worth if the system goes down due to a failed
    drive. For servers, the redundancy is worth it when you
    can just drop a new drive in and let it auto-rebuild
    without downtime. For home systems... eh, maybe not
    worth it.

    A better choice for home might be single disk, with
    Norton Ghost or Symantec Drive Image (create a new image
    weekly) written to a 2nd drive. Also, use the 2nd drive
    as a backup device (mirror just your data files from the
    primary to the secondary daily using something like
    Second Copy 2000). As long as you're diligent about
    creating and updating the images (Drive Image might be
    better software in this regard), you get the advantages
    of RAID1 (immunity to a failed drive) but with the bonus
    that you can restore your system back to a known working
    point should a software install go bad. (Make sure you
    backup user data seperately so you can re-load the
    image, then restore your user data.)

    RAID1/RAID5 is not a backup strategy (like Will said).
    It's more of a disaster prevention strategy. If the O/S
    corrupts a file, it will end up being corrupt on both
    disks. (Or if the file system corrupts itself, it will
    end up corrupt on both drives.)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "esara" <esara123@hotmail.com> wrote...
    >
    > 1) Raid 1 is mirroring right? but if a file is corrupted then it will
    > be stored in both drivers as a corrupted file.. But Raid is useful if
    > one harddrive mechanically die then i can use the other.. but this is
    > not going to happen that frequently!!

    RAID 1 is a seamless way to have a backup HD. Not only do you not have to
    backup your data as frequently (if you need/want an off-site backup), but you
    have a full HD available, ready to go, if the other dies.

    If you don't need/want that type of protection, don't bother.


    > 2) Raid 0 is striping.. well if there are 2 files, for example
    > file1.txt (in HD1) and file2.txt (in HD2) and lets say my email
    > software need to read file1.txt and my MSWords wants to read file2.txt
    > then these 2 software will be able to access these 2 files at the same
    > time. If not for Raid and we have only 1 HD then, first the OS will
    > try to access file1.txt and give it to email software and then the OS
    > will try to access file2.txt and try to give it to MSwords and this
    > will take longger time, I am right??

    Nope.

    In RAID 0, the 2 HDs look like a single HD to the software. The RAID controller
    allows the software to write parts of the file to both HDs simultaneously, so
    each HD head is doing part of the work. You may not notice a difference with
    small files, but will notice it when working with large files such as videos or
    large graphics.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    esara wrote:

    > 1) Raid 1 is mirroring right? but if a file is corrupted then it will
    > be stored in both drivers as a corrupted file..

    Correct. RAID 1 is *NOT* a backup strategy.


    > But Raid is useful if
    > one harddrive mechanically die then i can use the other.. but this is
    > not going to happen that frequently!!

    Aren't we optimistic? :)


    > 2) Raid 0 is striping.. well if there are 2 files, for example
    > file1.txt (in HD1) and file2.txt (in HD2) and lets say my email
    > software need to read file1.txt and my MSWords wants to read file2.txt
    > then these 2 software will be able to access these 2 files at the same
    > time. If not for Raid and we have only 1 HD then, first the OS will
    > try to access file1.txt and give it to email software and then the OS
    > will try to access file2.txt and try to give it to MSwords and this
    > will take longger time, I am right??

    RAID does not operate on the file level. It's completely transparent to
    the operating system. With RAID 0, any file will have its data equally
    distributed on the drives in the array. When you read or write the
    file, it occurs simultaneously across all drives.


    -WD
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John R Weiss wrote
    > RAID 1 is a seamless way to have a backup HD. Not only do you not have to
    > backup your data as frequently (if you need/want an off-site backup), but you
    > have a full HD available, ready to go, if the other dies.
    >
    > In RAID 0, the 2 HDs look like a single HD to the software

    could you also explain what is "striping" ? several new dell precision
    systems come preconfigured with Serial ATA and striping enabled on 2
    drives
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    RAID 0 is also called "striping," which, in its most simple sense, uses a
    pair of hard drives to become one larger hard drive onto which every other
    cluster of information is written simultaneously to each physical drive.
    What this means is that your hard drive write speed performance almost
    doubles, since the information is being doubled up and split up to be
    written at the same time to two separate drives.

    What this can also mean is that without additional forms of backup
    protection, if just one of the hard drives fail (all hard drives are really
    just mechanical parts) then the information on the remaining healthy hard
    drive is practically useless, since it only contains every other cluster
    (not file) of the original data...very scary if you don't perform regular
    backups. The failure of just one drive will result in all data in an array
    being lost and RAID 0 should never be used in mission critical environments.

    Please note that if you use drive imaging programs such as Norton Ghost® or
    PowerQuest DriveImage®, that drives in a RAID array may not be successfully
    restored from a created image. Hardware (controller BIOS-created) arrays
    might be successfully backed up and restored, but software (OS
    software-managed) arrays will likely fail to be successfully backed up or
    restored. The most recent versions of Norton Ghost® claims no compatibility
    with RAID arrays, and the most recent version of PowerQuest DriveImage®
    claims compatibility with hardware-based arrays only.

    Pros: can be useful for performance gains, fairly cost-effective for most
    home users (compared to RAID 1, or "mirroring"), due to only 2 identical (or
    similar, but the RAID array will see the larger drive having the same
    capacity of the smaller of the 2 drives, if different sizes) drives needed,
    and the entire storage capacity of both drives combined can be "used"

    Cons: performance gains at the expense of data security, drive imaging
    programs may not work properly.

    Russell
    http://tastycomputers.com

    "hunter" <huntertaylor@surfeu.fi> wrote in message
    news:4ac02c0e.0404240744.468424bc@posting.google.com...
    >
    > could you also explain what is "striping" ? several new dell precision
    > systems come preconfigured with Serial ATA and striping enabled on 2
    > drives
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Russell" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replacedotwith"."> wrote...
    >
    > Pros: can be useful for performance gains, fairly cost-effective for most
    > home users (compared to RAID 1, or "mirroring"), due to only 2 identical (or
    > similar, but the RAID array will see the larger drive having the same
    > capacity of the smaller of the 2 drives, if different sizes) drives needed,
    > and the entire storage capacity of both drives combined can be "used"
    >
    > Cons: performance gains at the expense of data security, drive imaging
    > programs may not work properly.

    I disagree with your first Con, at least in practical terms.

    I suppose that there is a miniscule added probability of a single drive failure
    when you have 2 drives instead of 1. However, it doesn't matter if you have a
    single drive or a RAID 0 array -- any single failure will obliterate your data.
    A backup regimen is required in either case.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I was referring to someone who had 2 drives and was weighing the pros and
    cons of leaving them non-RAID or creating a RAID array.. In a BASE
    (non-RAID array), there is more data security with 2 drives than with 2
    drives in a RAID 0 array. If you have striping across the 2 drives, one
    error on one cluster of data will result in a corruption on both drives, but
    in the BASE configuration, that particular scenario doesn't come into play.
    All things considered, both configurations have the same amount of storage
    space, but one is less prone to corruption, while the other one improves
    performance. Also, I think that RAID 1 (mirroring) arrays are a waste of
    resources for the average home user, halving their storage capacity at
    double the price, but they are useful for mission-critical server setups.
    In all configurations, however, a good backup routine is always the best way
    to go.

    Russell
    http://tastycomputers.com

    "John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
    news:A5Gic.17156$cF6.685564@attbi_s04...
    > "Russell" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replacedotwith"."> wrote...
    > >
    > > Pros: can be useful for performance gains, fairly cost-effective for
    most
    > > home users (compared to RAID 1, or "mirroring"), due to only 2 identical
    (or
    > > similar, but the RAID array will see the larger drive having the same
    > > capacity of the smaller of the 2 drives, if different sizes) drives
    needed,
    > > and the entire storage capacity of both drives combined can be "used"
    > >
    > > Cons: performance gains at the expense of data security, drive imaging
    > > programs may not work properly.
    >
    > I disagree with your first Con, at least in practical terms.
    >
    > I suppose that there is a miniscule added probability of a single drive
    failure
    > when you have 2 drives instead of 1. However, it doesn't matter if you
    have a
    > single drive or a RAID 0 array -- any single failure will obliterate your
    data.
    > A backup regimen is required in either case.
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John R Weiss wrote:
    >

    > > Cons: performance gains at the expense of data security, drive imaging
    > > programs may not work properly.
    >
    > I disagree with your first Con, at least in practical terms.

    RAID 1 is generally quicker on reads, and slower on writes.

    If the budget allows, "duplexing" the drives (1 controller for each
    drive) is often a lot quicker.


    Odie
    --

    RetroData
    Data Recovery Experts
    www.retrodata.co.uk
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John R Weiss <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote:
    | <snip>
    | I suppose that there is a miniscule added probability of a single
    | drive failure when you have 2 drives instead of 1. However, it
    | doesn't matter if you have a single drive or a RAID 0 array -- any
    | single failure will obliterate your data. A backup regimen is
    | required in either case.

    'regimen' ? ? ? - sounds like a merry band of people who go around editing
    registries ! :-)
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Russell" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replacedotwith"."> wrote:

    |performance. Also, I think that RAID 1 (mirroring) arrays are a waste of
    |resources for the average home user, halving their storage capacity at
    |double the price,

    Actually, halving their storage at the same price.

    Phil
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    pgx@pgrahams.com wrote:
    | "Russell" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replacedotwith"."> wrote:
    |
    || performance. Also, I think that RAID 1 (mirroring) arrays are a
    || waste of resources for the average home user, halving their storage
    || capacity at double the price,
    |
    | Actually, halving their storage at the same price.

    Or even giving the same storage capacity at double the price. ;-)
    Kevin.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Kevin Lawton wrote:
    > pgx@pgrahams.com wrote:
    > | "Russell" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replacedotwith"."> wrote:
    > |
    > || performance. Also, I think that RAID 1 (mirroring) arrays are a
    > || waste of resources for the average home user, halving their storage
    > || capacity at double the price,
    > |
    > | Actually, halving their storage at the same price.
    >
    > Or even giving the same storage capacity at double the price. ;-)
    > Kevin.
    >
    >
    >
    or giving one over the square root of two times the capacity at the
    square root of two times the cost.

    dick
    -- or something like that.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote...
    > | A backup regimen is
    > | required in either case.
    >
    > 'regimen' ? ? ? - sounds like a merry band of people who go around editing
    > registries ! :-)

    Or the "Reggie" (an old comic strip) fan club...
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Russell" <rsullivan@tastycomputersdotcom_replacedotwith"."> wrote...
    > I was referring to someone who had 2 drives and was weighing the pros and
    > cons of leaving them non-RAID or creating a RAID array.. In a BASE
    > (non-RAID array), there is more data security with 2 drives than with 2
    > drives in a RAID 0 array. If you have striping across the 2 drives, one
    > error on one cluster of data will result in a corruption on both drives, but
    > in the BASE configuration, that particular scenario doesn't come into play.

    At a technical level, I agree with you, but at the user level I don't believe it
    makes that much difference.

    Assume the nonrecoverable error rate on any HD is 10**-15 (actual specs from WD
    Raptor and Seagate Cheetah). The error rate on 2 HDs in an array will then be 2
    x 10**-15. In a non-striped array, the "first error" could be on either drive,
    and may or may not corrupt a given file. However, given the fact that virtually
    ANY critical error will involve data being written to the HD, the likelihood
    that the "first error" will affect a data file is extremely high. Relatively
    speaking, the increased probability of data loss due to striping is quite low.

    Also, if the choice of a RAID array drives the user to select a higher-quality
    HD in the first place, the probability of error may actually be reduced (e.g.,
    from 10**-14 for the Seagate Barracuda to 10**-15 for the Seagate Cheetah -- a
    10x improvement in basic reliability). IMO, a user savvy enough to consider the
    RAID 0 option will be more likely to consider the hardware options as well.

    I also realize that the last paragraph does not directly apply once the user has
    the HDs in hand and is ready to set up the BIOS for RAID or non-RAID. It's just
    more food for thought...
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1af33a3721bbf076989883@news-50.giganews.com...
    > In article <fd7d27e7.0404230917.527f3949
    > @posting.google.com>, esara123@hotmail.com says...
    > > Hi I am reading about RAID and I have found some MotherBoard are
    > > supporting it (but you have to pay more) But now I wonder why do we
    > > need Raid?? is it really used and useful featrue?? why I am saying
    > > this is becuase
    > >
    > > 1) Raid 1 is mirroring right? but if a file is corrupted then it will
    > > be stored in both drivers as a corrupted file.. But Raid is useful if
    > > one harddrive mechanically die then i can use the other.. but this is
    > > not going to happen that frequently!!
    > >
    >
    > The key to deciding whether to RAID1 or not is what is
    > your time worth if the system goes down due to a failed
    > drive. For servers, the redundancy is worth it when you
    > can just drop a new drive in and let it auto-rebuild
    > without downtime. For home systems... eh, maybe not
    > worth it.
    >
    > A better choice for home might be single disk, with
    > Norton Ghost or Symantec Drive Image (create a new image
    > weekly) written to a 2nd drive. Also, use the 2nd drive
    > as a backup device (mirror just your data files from the
    > primary to the secondary daily using something like
    > Second Copy 2000). As long as you're diligent about
    > creating and updating the images (Drive Image might be
    > better software in this regard), you get the advantages
    > of RAID1 (immunity to a failed drive) but with the bonus
    > that you can restore your system back to a known working
    > point should a software install go bad. (Make sure you
    > backup user data seperately so you can re-load the
    > image, then restore your user data.)
    >
    > RAID1/RAID5 is not a backup strategy (like Will said).
    > It's more of a disaster prevention strategy. If the O/S
    > corrupts a file, it will end up being corrupt on both
    > disks. (Or if the file system corrupts itself, it will
    > end up corrupt on both drives.)

    I chose a RAID board to have the option, even though I don't plan to use it
    soon. I'm using the PATA connection just like a typical primary IDE setup.
    No RAID arrays, and I do "normal" backups. But I also thought that having a
    3rd PATA controller and a 4th SATA controller on board would perform better
    than a PCI add on card. Was I correct?
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John R Weiss wrote:
    >
    >
    > At a technical level, I agree with you, but at the user level I don't believe it
    > makes that much difference.
    >
    > Assume the nonrecoverable error rate on any HD is 10**-15 (actual specs from WD
    > Raptor and Seagate Cheetah). The error rate on 2 HDs in an array will then be 2
    > x 10**-15.

    This is not actually so - an actuary would make more sense of it.

    To prove it wrong, assume 1 million of these drives have been sold.

    Applying your calculation, there is still an ****extremely**** slim
    chance of non-recoverable errors in, say, a period of a few months.

    I can guarantee that within that period, a number of the original 1
    million drives will have failed.

    For every number of drives doubled, there is a larger chance than merely
    double the previous number of drives.

    Odie
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Odie" <odie_ferrous@athotmaildot.com> wrote...
    >> Assume the nonrecoverable error rate on any HD is 10**-15 (actual specs from
    WD
    >> Raptor and Seagate Cheetah). The error rate on 2 HDs in an array will then
    be 2
    >> x 10**-15.
    >
    > This is not actually so - an actuary would make more sense of it.
    >
    > To prove it wrong, assume 1 million of these drives have been sold.
    >
    > Applying your calculation, there is still an ****extremely**** slim
    > chance of non-recoverable errors in, say, a period of a few months.
    >
    > I can guarantee that within that period, a number of the original 1
    > million drives will have failed.
    >
    > For every number of drives doubled, there is a larger chance than merely
    > double the previous number of drives.


    The spec is based on "bits written," not number of installed drives. With RAID
    1, the number of bits written will double, so statistically the "first error"
    will come twice as fast. With RAID 0, the number of bits written does not
    double, so based on the actual spec the "first error" will not come any earlier.
    However, since both drives are constantly operating, I chose to use the
    conservative case.

    Again, this is technical and statistical in nature, and a single user will not
    likely be affected at all in realistic terms. However, since there is always
    that chance the statistics may point at you, a backup is always a good idea.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "BP" <Zpoweretal@110.neZt> wrote...
    >
    >> The key to deciding whether to RAID1 or not is what is
    >> your time worth if the system goes down due to a failed
    >> drive. For servers, the redundancy is worth it when you
    >> can just drop a new drive in and let it auto-rebuild
    >> without downtime. For home systems... eh, maybe not
    >> worth it.

    OTOH, assume a home user can buy a RAID 1 array already configured, so he
    doesn't have to worry about setup. He then doesn't have to worry about Norton
    Ghost or similar -- the image is automatically created. If he has a HD failure,
    he simply replaces the HD instead of trying to recover the image with Ghost.

    An off-site backup is still a good idea, but for a non-geek who may not backup
    anything at all, RAID 1 has a place. Besides, a second HD won't cost much more
    these days than the software. After that, any failure will require a new HD in
    any scenario, so the elegance of the recovery becomes the issue.


    > I chose a RAID board to have the option, even though I don't plan to use it
    > soon. I'm using the PATA connection just like a typical primary IDE setup.
    > No RAID arrays, and I do "normal" backups. But I also thought that having a
    > 3rd PATA controller and a 4th SATA controller on board would perform better
    > than a PCI add on card. Was I correct?

    All depends on the individual implementations... One could be led to believe
    that current on-board PATA/SATA HD controllers would perform better than add-on
    boards. OTOH, that is not true these days with graphics adapters -- the state
    of the art is such that add-on cards are much more capable than virtually any
    on-board graphics...
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
    news:K4cjc.36579$GR.4991609@attbi_s01...
    > "BP" <Zpoweretal@110.neZt> wrote...
    > >
    > >> The key to deciding whether to RAID1 or not is what is
    > >> your time worth if the system goes down due to a failed
    > >> drive. For servers, the redundancy is worth it when you
    > >> can just drop a new drive in and let it auto-rebuild
    > >> without downtime. For home systems... eh, maybe not
    > >> worth it.
    >
    > OTOH, assume a home user can buy a RAID 1 array already configured, so he
    > doesn't have to worry about setup. He then doesn't have to worry about
    Norton
    > Ghost or similar -- the image is automatically created. If he has a HD
    failure,
    > he simply replaces the HD instead of trying to recover the image with
    Ghost.
    >
    > An off-site backup is still a good idea, but for a non-geek who may not
    backup
    > anything at all, RAID 1 has a place. Besides, a second HD won't cost much
    more
    > these days than the software. After that, any failure will require a new
    HD in
    > any scenario, so the elegance of the recovery becomes the issue.
    >
    >
    > > I chose a RAID board to have the option, even though I don't plan to use
    it
    > > soon. I'm using the PATA connection just like a typical primary IDE
    setup.
    > > No RAID arrays, and I do "normal" backups. But I also thought that
    having a
    > > 3rd PATA controller and a 4th SATA controller on board would perform
    better
    > > than a PCI add on card. Was I correct?
    >
    > All depends on the individual implementations... One could be led to
    believe
    > that current on-board PATA/SATA HD controllers would perform better than
    add-on
    > boards. OTOH, that is not true these days with graphics adapters -- the
    state
    > of the art is such that add-on cards are much more capable than virtually
    any
    > on-board graphics...
    >
    No, no on board graphics here. I'd read about the performance problems
    there. I do have on board sound. Not too sure about that one either, but to
    date, no noticeable performance problems system-wide or with sound quality.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <K4cjc.36579$GR.4991609@attbi_s01>,
    jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net says...
    > "BP" <Zpoweretal@110.neZt> wrote...
    > >
    > >> The key to deciding whether to RAID1 or not is what is
    > >> your time worth if the system goes down due to a failed
    > >> drive. For servers, the redundancy is worth it when you
    > >> can just drop a new drive in and let it auto-rebuild
    > >> without downtime. For home systems... eh, maybe not
    > >> worth it.
    >
    > OTOH, assume a home user can buy a RAID 1 array already configured, so he
    > doesn't have to worry about setup. He then doesn't have to worry about Norton
    > Ghost or similar -- the image is automatically created. If he has a HD failure,
    > he simply replaces the HD instead of trying to recover the image with Ghost.
    >
    > An off-site backup is still a good idea, but for a non-geek who may not backup
    > anything at all, RAID 1 has a place. Besides, a second HD won't cost much more
    > these days than the software. After that, any failure will require a new HD in
    > any scenario, so the elegance of the recovery becomes the issue.
    >

    Agree, KISS principle. Ghost is definitely not KISS (as
    often as I've used it, you do have to know what you're
    doing). I've heard that Drive Image is much nicer UI,
    can update images on-the-fly, possibly being a much
    simpler system.

    The question also boils down to which is more likely to
    happen... drive failure or user mucking up the system?
    Microsoft's system restore points do help a good bit
    with the latter, which might tip the balance towards
    RAID1.

    I've done it both ways (did RAID1 on all my home systems
    since 1998 or earlier), but lately I'm trying out the
    Ghost/DriveImage method instead.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Also assume that a particular home user may have installed/uninstalled a
    particular program incorrectly, or that some badly-written code in some
    shareware has wreaked havoc with the registry, or that a viral infection has
    gummed things up...a RAID 1 array will not be useful in these instances, as
    what is written to one disc is simultaneously written to the second disc,
    with the problems identical on each disc. In this case, the only thing that
    would restore the home user's drive(s) to a usable state would be a cloned
    image or a reinstallation with needed data restored from a separate medium.
    RAID 1 is only useful in the event that a physical error is present on one
    of the discs. A regular backup regimen is the only way to go.

    Russell
    http://tastycomputers.com

    "John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
    news:K4cjc.36579$GR.4991609@attbi_s01...
    > OTOH, assume a home user can buy a RAID 1 array already configured, so he
    > doesn't have to worry about setup. He then doesn't have to worry about
    Norton
    > Ghost or similar -- the image is automatically created. If he has a HD
    failure,
    > he simply replaces the HD instead of trying to recover the image with
    Ghost.
    >
    > An off-site backup is still a good idea, but for a non-geek who may not
    backup
    > anything at all, RAID 1 has a place. Besides, a second HD won't cost much
    more
    > these days than the software. After that, any failure will require a new
    HD in
    > any scenario, so the elegance of the recovery becomes the issue.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >Microsoft's system restore points do help a good bit
    >with the latter, which might tip the balance towards
    >RAID1.

    9 out of 10 SOHO RAID users run RAID 0. RAID 1 is in no way a
    substitute for backups. OS is corrupted on first drive, same with
    second. Virus attack on drive one, same on drive two. M$ system
    restore and RAID 1 both give performance hits.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Andrew J <ajpk3@hotmail.comremove> wrote:
    || Microsoft's system restore points do help a good bit
    || with the latter, which might tip the balance towards
    || RAID1.
    |
    | 9 out of 10 SOHO RAID users run RAID 0. RAID 1 is in no way a
    | substitute for backups. OS is corrupted on first drive, same with
    | second. Virus attack on drive one, same on drive two. M$ system
    | restore and RAID 1 both give performance hits.

    To be honest, if you are after better speed and reliability you're probably
    better off going for SCSI. 10000 rpm ultra-320 SCSI drives are noticeably
    faster than most IDE types and tend to be better made - so more reliable if
    they are kept cool. There's a good variety of backup devices available for
    SCSI connection also, and you can take the connection outside of the machine
    so they don't have to be built-in.
    Kevin.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt NAS / RAID Systems Product