Ad
News

Intel to ship 1.8 GHz Centrino as Pentium M 745

Published on April 05, 2004

Intel hasn't been backward in coming forward about its upcoming 32-bit microprocessor naming scheme, but it's kept mum about the finer details. Read more

1394 Trade Association Announces FireWire 3200

Published on December 17, 2007

A new proposal to bring 4x faster speeds over FireWire 800 is approaching the final ratification phase. Beginning in February, 2008, a 3.2 Gbps FireWire could be standard fare for future machines, using the same cables and connectors. Read more

University of Tokyo and Fujitsu show first single-photon emission in data transmission wavelengths

Published on July 16, 2004

The University of Tokyo's Nanoelectronics Collaborative Research Center and Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. Read more

CeBIT 2008: Areca Unified Serial Controller with integrated SAS-Expander

Published on March 05, 2008

Areca, a Taiwanese company specializing in high-end controller cards, is displaying a few new products aimed at small and mid-sized businesses as well as freelancers at CeBIT. Read more

Latest Reviews & Articles

4GB Gets Cheap: 9 Dual-Channel Kits Compared

Published on December 01, 2008

Recent price drops have made 4 GB DDR2 dual-channel kits affordable for even the most cost-conscious buyers. We pushed nine models to their limits to determine best value for a broad range of users. Read more

System Builder Marathon: Performance & Value

Published on November 28, 2008

We tightened the budget on this month’s enthusiast-level system while loosening our belt for the low-cost gamer box by a similar percentage. Today we gauge the effect of these changes on performance and value and compare to last month's machines. Read more

System Builder Marathon: $1,250 Enthusiast PC

Published on November 27, 2008

On this, the second day of our System Builder Marathon, Don turns down the price tag of his mid-range build looking for a sweet spot just above the $1,000 marker. Let's see what sort of hardware he found for it! Read more

System Builder Marathon: $625 Gaming PC

Published on November 26, 2008

This month's System Builder Marathon is all about your feedback to us. We've revamped our entry-level and mid-range PCs with new price points. Let's kick things off with what we think is the best value at a $625 price point! Read more

  Tom's Hardware Forums » Storage » NAS/RAID & Technologies » Is RAID 1 a Step Forward or Backward?
 

Is RAID 1 a Step Forward or Backward?




Word :   Username :  
 
Bottom
Author
 Thread : Is RAID 1 a Step Forward or Backward?
 
Profile: stranger
More Information

I'm currently utilizing a 6-year-old Dell Dimension 4100 (866MHz Pentium III, Windows XP2) as
a file server to back up my two other PCs on a 100Mbps LAN. I basically just run daily incremental image backups to a 300GB IDE drive using Acronis True Image Home Edition V11. I also like to store a few 'historical' images (1 week ago, 1 month ago) because it allows me to restore old configurations (a protection scheme which has saved my butt a few times).

I'm planning to get a larger drive to accomodate increased storage needs, and also to open up the option of creating some shared folder space for media files. GIven this, I'm thinking about adding a RocketRaid 1520 SATA RAID controller card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16816115011) to the Dell,
picking up two 500GB Seagate SATA drives, and then running them in a mirrored (RAID 1) configuration.

Two questions.

(1) Is doing this more trouble than it's worth? Is adding such a RAID controller card likely to be a hit-or-miss proposition with such an old computer? Speed of backups is not much of a concern as I run these backups overnight. What IS a concern is if the RAID 1 controller actually REDUCES reliability - i.e. increases the possibility of corrupted backups. I've been reading a lot about NAS devices and it seems like a lot of them suffer from this.

(2) Are mirrored drives (RAID 1) IDENTICAL in format to a standard, non-RAID drive? In other words, could I pop one of the mirrored drives into another PC with a non-RAID SATA configuration and access the files?

(3) Would I be better off purchasing a dedicated NAS device with a RAID option?

For those of you who might suggest it, I have considered and rejected purchasing a Windows Home Server device at this time. I don't believe the software is sufficiently baked (read the Microsoft forum on WHS and judge for yourself) and it's a LOT more expensive than simply adding a RocketRaid controller to the Dell.

Any advice would be appreciated.



Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: old hand
More Information

1) Assuming you have good hardware (i.e. nothing wrong with the RAID card, the hard drives, or your existing system), and buy the RAID card from a reputable manufacturer, and install it properly, it should be very reliable. Check with the RAID card manufacturer regarding compatibility with your system - there are some system BIOS's that may have difficulty with certain cards, especially with the difference in age between your system & the proposed RAID card.

2) Most RAID 1 controllers write the individual drives of a RAID 1 in a format that enables them to be read as stand-alone drives without the RAID controller. To make sure yours does, create the RAID 1, dump a few files on it, then take one drive out and put it in another computer and make sure they can be read. When you put the drive back in, you need to delete and re-create the RAID volume, partition, and format it to make sure they're back in sync.

3) The think I don't like about stand-alone NAS units is the total lack of performance (some are slower than molasses), and relatively cheap/consumer quality of the software. Bad RAID software is worse than no RAID because it lulls you into a false sense of security. I've seen NAS's set up in a RAID 1 where one drive failed, and the data on the remaining drive became inaccessible. Wouldn't rebuild the RAID either. Nice protection. :sarcastic:


Message edited by SomeJoe7777 on 12-10-2007 at 05:26:49 PM

---------------
- SomeJoe7777

"Did he dazzle you with his extensive knowledge of mineral water? Or was it his in-depth analysis of, uh, uh, Marky Mark that finally reeled you in?" - Troy Dyer (Ethan Hawke), Reality Bites, 1994
Profile: stranger
More Information

Thanks so much, SomeJoe777. I fully appreciate your comment about performance of stand-alone RAID devices. Most appear to have significantly less horsepower than my six-year-old PC. And the performance they quote is one-third what I currently get (though admittedly I'm not running in a RAID configuration).

Profile: stranger
More Information


Quote :

Thanks so much, SomeJoe777. I fully appreciate your comment about performance of stand-alone RAID devices. Most appear to have significantly less horsepower than my six-year-old PC. And the performance they quote is one-third what I currently get (though admittedly I'm not running in a RAID configuration).



A file server (or NAS) doesn't need horse power. The processing bottle neck is the read/writes from the hard drive. Since the CPU is virtually never utilized, a 386 would probably sufficiently handle the load. Memory can have an advantage when you're repeatedly reading the same files, but when reading from a large diversity of files memory becomes useless too.

The only horespower an NAS or file server needs is in the hard drives.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Duke of Veg on 07-11-2008 at 12:14:53 PM
Profile: old hand
More Information

Duke of Veg wrote :

A file server (or NAS) doesn't need horse power. The processing bottle neck is the read/writes from the hard drive. Since the CPU is virtually never utilized, a 386 would probably sufficiently handle the load. Memory can have an advantage when you're repeatedly reading the same files, but when reading from a large diversity of files memory becomes useless too.

The only horespower an NAS or file server needs is in the hard drives.



The hard drive read/write rates are absolutely not the bottleneck.

Typical hard drive read/write speed: 80 MB/sec

Most standalone NAS units read/write speed over the network, using Gigabit Ethernet: 8-10 MB/sec

Windows Server, even on a light processor (think Pentium 4 2.4 GHz), read/write speed over the network, using Gigabit Ethernet: 35 MB/sec.

The bottleneck in the standalone NAS units is not the hard drives - it is the processing power in both the network subsystem and the SMB code (same as it is in Windows servers). A cheap, several-year old Windows Server will run circles around the standalone NAS units from NetGear, Linksys, D-Link, etc.


---------------
- SomeJoe7777

"Did he dazzle you with his extensive knowledge of mineral water? Or was it his in-depth analysis of, uh, uh, Marky Mark that finally reeled you in?" - Troy Dyer (Ethan Hawke), Reality Bites, 1994

  Tom's Hardware Forums » Storage » NAS/RAID & Technologies » Is RAID 1 a Step Forward or Backward?

Go to:
 

Google Ads