Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1st time Raid 0

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 8, 2011 10:32:41 AM

Hi, as title says, this is my first raid setup I'm going to attempt ever. Its my home PC - sig - Asus P8P67 Pro mobo. Currently I have a ST3500418AS 500GB SEAGATE drive for Windows and a SAMSUNG HD103SJ 1TB drive for Games / Backups / Movies. I already purchased a 2nd ST3500418AS 500GB awaiting delivery.

I know most of the pro's and con's regarding Raid 0.

Now, question.

- Is there any stability issues running your OS on a raid 0 config?

- One drive is 6 months old and 1 drive is brand new. Does this impact stability / performance?

Thanks

Lian

More about : 1st time raid

a b G Storage
April 8, 2011 2:14:32 PM

Lian,
I have been running RAID0 for as long as the chip sets have been offering it. I have not lost a single file. It is reliable, fast stable - all good things.

There are people who have had their RAID crash - no one knows if its a power supply issue, drive issue or whatever, but in RAID 0 you lose everything... so the safe thing to do is to back up the stuff you cannot afford to lose - but you should do that anyhow - right?

Drive age DOES NOT matter one bit..

It is easy to set up and use, give it a shot. Use something like HDTune or whatever you like to measure before and after performance...

good luck (you wont need it)
a b G Storage
April 8, 2011 2:28:21 PM

+1 for vvhocare5...

Lian said:
- Is there any stability issues running your OS on a raid 0 config?
None. It can be argued that there is a higher probability of drive failure and data loss using RAID 0 but my experience has been that RAID0 is no more or less "safe" or "reliable" than a single drive. Think of it this way, if OS on single drive and it fails, then you lose your data, if OS on RAID0 and a drive fails, you lose your data; no different.

Lian said:
One drive is 6 months old and 1 drive is brand new. Does this impact stability / performance?
No effect at all. Have mixed old with new drives in several RAID arrays over the years without issues.

Generally speaking, a drive is going to fail when it's ready to fail; no sooner or later.

I do however, highly recommend either Western Digital or Samsung drives over any other brand.
Related resources
a b G Storage
April 8, 2011 3:49:16 PM

Lian said:


- One drive is 6 months old and 1 drive is brand new. Does this impact stability / performance?


If a drive is going to fail it usually fails early... or after it's regular life span. I would be more concerned about the new drive dropping out than the 6 month old one. Performance is not impacted by 6 months use.

Disks are quite good. Failure rates are low enough that you shouldn't have to fight with your stripe. It should just work. You do understand that either drive will knock you out and therefore you are TWICE as likely to lose everything. Doubling is big even when starting with small numbers.
April 8, 2011 10:54:29 PM

Thanks very much for your replies. And sooo going for it now, unfortunately the NEW DRIVE IS FAULTY so getting it RMA'd on Monday. I'm sooo happy I didn't just jump straight into my bois to set up the raid! SeaTools is a godsend.

You all made very valid points and it seems a no brainer. Just wanted to make 100% sure theres no more risk than a single drive and doesn't seem like there is really. Should probably be re-installing my OS on Tuesday depending on Supplier. Can't wait :) 

Cheers all!
a b G Storage
April 9, 2011 3:49:23 PM

I'll start by saying I have used RAID arrays more or less for about 15 years. I have never really had any major issues. I will point out some things that I have learned from my experience.

If you have data on a RAID 0 array and you don't back it up, you will lose it. Period. If you believe there is no more risk than running a single drive, you are going to be in for a big surprise one of these days, maybe not next week, but if you run RAID, you will at some time or another lose everything on the array. Just using for an OS is not so big of a deal, just reload the OS. But if you have any data on the drive, you are well advised to run a good backup and keep it current.

I have only had 1 drive ever fail in a RAID array and that was a WD 74 MB drive in a RAID0+1 array of 4 drives, about 10-12 years ago.
Usually what causes data loss for the average enthusiast user is the operator messing around with something else and inadvertently breaks the array, and does too much damage to recover it before they realize what they have done. Hardware failure, for me anyway, was very rare.

And my final 2 cents.
RAID 0 was great solution 10 years ago when drives were small, slow, and you had 128MB of RAM on your motherboard instead of 8 gig. With the advent of modern fast SATA drives, even faster solid state drives, and huge amounts of memory to load programs into, running RAID 0, especially for your OS drive, is quite frankly a bad idea. You really gain very little.
a b G Storage
April 9, 2011 10:31:06 PM

^+1 Wow... well written.

However, I will not discourage the next generation from making the same mistakes. Especially with spinning disks. Don't think I will raid 0 ssds and I will not encourage it as the benefit is even narrower. But maybe I am getting old.

April 10, 2011 5:57:45 AM

You shouldn't be utilizing RAID to expect HUGE speed gains. The only reason you should consider RAID (0) is because you are trying to squeeze any little bit of performance out of the slowest part of the Information processing chain. Remember HDD's access info at ms and memory at ns.
In my opinion the ideal storage set up is having 2 small capacity high performing HDD's, if your rich 2ea 10k raptors haha or otherwise 2ea 7200rpm drives with bigger caches the better will do just fine. Set those up in RAID 0 (Only using hardware RAID controllers) as your primary windows installation. Then have a separate High capacity HDD just to store your junk, music, movies, game installs, what have ya. Then if you get a virus and worst case scenario you have to reinstall windows you'll still have your back up data on that high capacity drve.

Or if you have really deep pockets feel free to try high end SCSI... but ONLY if your Mobo offers native SCSI, using an add on card only bottle necks at the add on cards fastest speed. Which makes the whole thing a wash.
April 10, 2011 6:02:19 AM

chunkymonster said:
+1 for vvhocare5...

None. It can be argued that there is a higher probability of drive failure and data loss using RAID 0 but my experience has been that RAID0 is no more or less "safe" or "reliable" than a single drive. Think of it this way, if OS on single drive and it fails, then you lose your data, if OS on RAID0 and a drive fails, you lose your data; no different.

No effect at all. Have mixed old with new drives in several RAID arrays over the years without issues.

Generally speaking, a drive is going to fail when it's ready to fail; no sooner or later.

I do however, highly recommend either Western Digital or Samsung drives over any other brand.


I recommend any brand other than Hitachi. WORST HDD MANUFACTURER EVER. I've never had any other brand crash on me prior to me ending its life cycle myself by upgrading.
April 10, 2011 6:43:08 AM

^ Its Seagate.

jitpublisher said:
If you have data on a RAID 0 array and you don't back it up, you will lose it. Period. If you believe there is no more risk than running a single drive, you are going to be in for a big surprise one of these days, maybe not next week, but if you run RAID, you will at some time or another lose everything on the array. Just using for an OS is not so big of a deal, just reload the OS. But if you have any data on the drive, you are well advised to run a good backup and keep it current.


Its for home use. Not a big deal. And I have an extra single drive Terebite (as stated in the OP) so thanks for the big surpise I'm in for, but as I said, I know the cons of Raid 0 and this is me experimenting. Like I'm going to put all my life long important backups on a Raid 0. Dont think so.

forummd said:
You shouldn't be utilizing RAID to expect HUGE speed gains. The only reason you should consider RAID (0) is because you are trying to squeeze any little bit of performance out of the slowest part of the Information processing chain. Remember HDD's access info at ms and memory at ns.


This is exacly why im going to do this. SSD's are not even an option where I'm from. Too expensive.


The thread's been solved. Could a Mod close it please.


a c 353 G Storage
April 10, 2011 1:21:26 PM

Like a couple of others, I am a long time user (Mid 90's) - not one failure. Did have a drive report a write error, backed up data redid volume and still uesing the drive.
went with ssd and dropped raid0 on my current Win7 64 bit I5-750, but that was do to loss of trim at that time. My back-up computer has two pairs of hdds each set with raid0, one for vista and one for xp.

Two points.
(1) since, like me, you like to experiment - try short stroking. Pros higher performance than Plain Jane raid0 - Con, you lose space ie you set volume to 30 -> 40 % of capacity and do not use the remainder of the drive.

(2) My favorite drive is the WD blacks (I'm using 1 set of 640 Blacks in back up system), But I seem to recall that with some of the newer drives, they are not recommended for use in raid0.

My current position: Love SSD for boot drive, I do not use raid on them. For data drives the choice would be based on use. Raid0 is ideal for video editing (working with dvd dot vob files - 1 gig and bluray files which can be 10->40 gigs for a single file); Photos 1 -10 meg jpegs; large spreedsheets; and cam/cad drawings. All thes types of files are large and Sequencial in nature.
It is in Sequencial read/writes that Raid0 shines. For the small file random read writes and access time raid0 is of no benifit. Reason Raid0 not a big improvement for Operating system and program loads (short stoke does help, although SSDs so much better).

If short stoke is not used, I still recommend Not setting the Raid0 volume to the full size. Set up a 200->400 gig volume for operating system and programs using default settings. Then set the remainder of the HDD to a 2nd volume - If working with large files then up the Strip from default and when formating up the cluster size (I used 16K clusters). Reason - a 10 meg files will use 2.5 K clusters (@ 4 k size) vs 825 clusters @ 16K.
!