I love RAIDs, first got into them with two 40GB drives in RAID 0, and remember spending £200 each ($400 or so each) on four 100GB top of the line WD Caviars for my 2001 PC for use with a Promise Fasttrack TX4 PCI controller in RAID 0
My god, back then I had a nice HDD setup
Unfortunately back then I was a bit of an idiot and decided the manual would tell me if the drives needed active cooling. They were all mounted together and got too hot to touch. Three died within a year. Do'h!
Levels are not too bad...
0 = read/write to drives alternately, in blocks of <stripe size>. The stripe size can be anything from around 8k to god knows how much, depending on the controller. This speeds things up as any file larger than the stripe size will be read/written by two (or more) drives at once.
1 = Write the same data to each drive, so that if one drive dies you have the other as a backup. Speeds up reads while both drives are working, as data can be read in a RAID 0 fashion.
2 = Almost never used. Bit level striping, and rather than "parity" it uses ECC like RAM does. For a 10 disk set you need 4 ECC disks. Stupidly inefficient, and it can only take one drive failure and carry on.
3 = Very similar to the more well known RAID 5. Bit level parity, so "Stripe size" is normally 1kb or less, and one drive is always the parity drive. Can be thought of as a RAID 0 array of however many disks, with one extra disk of dedicated parity. Can take the loss of any one disk, and while running with 1 disk down takes very little performance hit. Slower Reads than RAID 5. dedicated parity drive is a bottleneck as it *always* needs to me accessed for *any* other transfer. Used by the XFX Revo64 cards based on the Netcell Revolution chipset.
4 = RAID 3, but instead of bit level parity, it uses block level parity, like the more common RAID 5 and RAID 0. Rarely used. Somewhat of a compromise between RAID 3 and 5, with the advantages of neither.
5 = Block level parity like RAID 4, but instead of one drive always carrying the parity data like RAID 3 and 4, the parity rotates. For example with 4 drives, A, B, C, and D,
A--B--C--D
1--2--3--P
P--1--2--3
3--P--1--2
2--3--P--1
1--2--3--P
Would be the data pattern, where P is the Parity data. Distributed parity removes the bottleneck of the dedicated parity drive, but makes the array very slow when one drive is down and very slow to rebuild. Better read/write performance than RAID 3 when array is all working.
6 = RAID 5 but with two lots of parity, so up to 2 drives can fail. Used in mission critical servers, as with RAID 5 if one drive fails you loose all protection until it is replaced. With RAID 6 you are still protected till it is replaced. Of course, it also needs at least 4 disks and wastes 2 disks of space rather than 1.
Some companies make up their own levels, and try to market them as "higher = better". These are the official 6.
Then there is nested RAID... RAID 0/1 or 0/5 or 0+1 or whatever...
Just think of these as an "array of arrays". Unfortunately different manufaturers put the numbers different ways around, but usually....
Take 6 disks. Make two RAID 0 arrays of 3 disks each, call them group A and group B. You see two big drives. These are very fast but not very safe, so make a RAID 1 over these.
You can then loose all of group A, and still run from group B, or vice-versa. You CANNOT loose one drive from each group, as then both the RAID 0 arrays have failed, meaning both the "drives" in the RAID 1 array have failed.
The other way would be:
Take 6 disks. Make 3 RAID 1 arrays of 2 disks each, groups A, B, and C. You see 3 drives, these are very safe but not big enough or fast enough. Make a RAID 0 out of these 3 drives.
You can then loose up to 3 drives, as long as you dont loose both drives in any group. You could loose one from A, one from B, and one from C, but not both of A or whatever.
Unfortunately while one manufacturer would mean the first way by "RAID 0/1" the next would call it "RAID 1/0", so there isnt a failsafe way to tell what they mean....
I've just babbled on here. If I have bored anyone I apologise....