Solved

What should I do? RAID 0, 5, or 10?

OK, so I have lately been considering whether RAID 0, RAID 5, or RAID 10 should be my solution. But seeing as I have no experience whatsoever, please let me know what YOU would do.

Here is what I need:

I need extremely fast write speeds (which should be taken care of by the RAID array) between 5 and 13 MB a second (or 17 to 46 GB an hour).
I need quite a bit of space (at least 1 TB) which rules out SSDs
Money is a definitely a concern (I would really like to not have to spend more then 200 $ CAD, or 190 $ USD on this)
I definitely would like some redundancy because once I install the OS on my pc, I am going to take it to be tweaked and optimized at my work. This costs me 50 bucks and I would really like to not have to pay 50 bucks every time a hard drive fails
I already have a 300 gig HDD that I can put the OS on worst case scenario, but I would really rather put the OS on the RAID array so I can benefit from fast boot times and stuff

I like the idea of RAID 5, because then I save some money on drives compared to RAID 10, but it is also redundant. BUt I heard that RAID 5 offers little performance gain over a normal HDD.

If it helps at all, I plan on capturing HD video with Intensity Pro by Black Magic. (card version not the shuttle version)
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

Thank you very much in advance for your help.
7 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about what raid
  1. 5 - 13 MB/s is very easily achievable; there are plenty of people who exceed 100MB/s. If you're wanting to save money, RAID 10 is pretty much ruled out, as you need 4 disks for that. RAID0 requires 2 drives, and RAID5 can be done with 3 or 4 drives. RAID0 offers no redundancy whatsoever.

    I think RAID1 or RAID5 would suit your application personally.

    RAID1 requires two disks, but you only get the storage of a single disk.
    http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136592
    Two of those wouldn't set you back too much, and would yield 1500GB of storage.

    RAID5 will most likely perform very much the same as RAID1, it could be better or worse, depending on your setup. This requires three disks.
    http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136544
    Three of those would yield 1280GB total, with a fault tolerance of one disk.

    Just something to think about, hope this helps.


    - Jesse
  2. Thanks. I guess that would work.. I really don't want to spend 240 on drives but I guess it'll have to do. But I have two questions

    1: I can get 500 gig hds at my work for 49 bucks staff price. The problem is they aren't even a real brand name so I am not sure how fast or reliable they are. But I am wondering that since they will be in a raid array for performance as well as redundancy, would you go for the cheaper hds in my case or still spend the 79 bucks required for real brand name hds?

    2. I have asked multiple forums and no one seams to want to answer me.. how would I replace a drive that has failed in a raid 1, 10, or 5 array? I know that it should be the same mkae and model, but how do you make it start to reconstruct itself and everything?
  3. Best answer
    To answeer question 1:

    If they are "White Label" drives, they will be fine. White Labels are often Seagate (or WD) drives sold in bulk to companies. Even if not, I still think you'd be okay. Someone will probably chime in a saiy "don't run a RAID array without a RAID specific drive!" Wog wash! Save your money!

    To answer questions 2:

    From this website: BuffaloTech.com (found thru a google search for "replace a drive in a raid 1 array")

    "In the case of a drive failure, the healthy drive will assume the role of the main drive and the data is accessible without interruption. Once the faulty drive is replaced, the RAID array will be restored to its original condition. RAID-1 is ideal in two-drive configurations seeking redundancy in lieu of capacity."

    There is also a mention of RAID 5, but it's not a simple as above.

    And finally, I think you are getting away from your original post: You want SPEED AND SIZE! RAID 1 or 5 will not give you this! 1 & 5 give you redundency. Only RAID 0 will give you speed, or 10 will give you speed and redundantcy.

    Check out my benchmarks of this thread: I show my SSD in RAID 0, HDD in RAID 0, and regular HDD.

    I will admit, it shows about a 50% in RAID 0 vs. non for a HDD.

    But still , the numbers are still way above what you said you need (5-13MB/s, mine were over 100MB/s). So maybe you don't need any RAID. If this is the case, you'd be better off getting one large, 1.0 - 2TB drive, as there read/write speed are faster than 500GB. This will save you some cash, and may meet your needs.
  4. skyturnred said:
    I definitely would like some redundancy because once I install the OS on my pc, I am going to take it to be tweaked and optimized at my work. This costs me 50 bucks and I would really like to not have to pay 50 bucks every time a hard drive fails
    If you make backups then you won't have to worry about RAID and you won't have to pay 50 bucks when a drive fails. And you'll be able to recover not only from a drive failure, but also from theft, viruses, corruption, etc. etc.

    Windows 7 has a built-in "System Image" backup that lets you back up your system and then do a bare-metal restore following a drive failure.
  5. foscooter said:
    To answeer question 1:

    If they are "White Label" drives, they will be fine. White Labels are often Seagate (or WD) drives sold in bulk to companies. Even if not, I still think you'd be okay. Someone will probably chime in a saiy "don't run a RAID array without a RAID specific drive!" Wog wash! Save your money!

    To answer questions 2:

    From this website: BuffaloTech.com (found thru a google search for "replace a drive in a raid 1 array")

    "In the case of a drive failure, the healthy drive will assume the role of the main drive and the data is accessible without interruption. Once the faulty drive is replaced, the RAID array will be restored to its original condition. RAID-1 is ideal in two-drive configurations seeking redundancy in lieu of capacity."

    There is also a mention of RAID 5, but it's not a simple as above.

    And finally, I think you are getting away from your original post: You want SPEED AND SIZE! RAID 1 or 5 will not give you this! 1 & 5 give you redundency. Only RAID 0 will give you speed, or 10 will give you speed and redundantcy.

    Check out my benchmarks of this thread: I show my SSD in RAID 0, HDD in RAID 0, and regular HDD.

    I will admit, it shows about a 50% in RAID 0 vs. non for a HDD.

    But still , the numbers are still way above what you said you need (5-13MB/s, mine were over 100MB/s). So maybe you don't need any RAID. If this is the case, you'd be better off getting one large, 1.0 - 2TB drive, as there read/write speed are faster than 500GB. This will save you some cash, and may meet your needs.


    Thank you very much I had a hard time finding answers to those questions and you answered them perfectly. I think that based on the information received from you as well as others I will simply get 2 of those HDs I mentioned that I can buy at my work and place them in a RAID 0 array. Then I will get a 1 tb external drive (external because they are much cheaper at my work) and just do system images onto that. That way I can save 100 bucks easily.
  6. Best answer selected by skyturnred.
  7. I don't think you'll be disappointed!
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Hard Drives Storage