Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which Raid would you build: Raid1, Raid 5 or Raid 10?

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 5, 2013 11:25:03 PM

I am finalizing my first build and I have a simple question regarding Raid. Using the spec. below which one would you used? (Raid1 or Raid 5) I am strongly considering setting the system up as follows:

1. Using the SSD for Boot/OS/Programs
2. Using the 2 TB HDD in RAID1 for libraries (data/media, my DOCS, Music, Pics, etc.)
3. Using the 1 TB external HDD for backup-Microsoft Sync and Norton backup Utilities

With that being said...I have a feeling I may be overlooking some benefit Raid 10 may provided over Raid1 or Raid 5 if I purchase another drive. I will primarily use this system for gaming and the internet. Any input will be greatly appreciate! :o  :o  :o  :o  :o 



System specs:
Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 2G DDR5 PCIE 3.0
Cosair GS 700
Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad Core
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing
Gigabyte GA-Z77-D3H-MVP mATX LGA 1155
Corsair Vengeance 4GB (2x 4GB) DDR3-1600
Crucial m4 256GB 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive SATA 6Gb/s :pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff:  :pfff: 
Seagate Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200 RPM
Seagate Barracuda 2x(1TB 3.5" 7200 RPM)
Cooler Master HAF 912 ATX Mid Tower
Asus BC-12B1ST-BLK/B/AS Blue-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer
WD 1 TB external drive
a c 82 G Storage
January 6, 2013 1:25:29 AM

Even with RAID 10 you need some external backup unless you don't care about your data, but then why would you consider RAID 5 or RAID 10? The benefit of RAID 10 (4 drives) over RAID 1 (2 drives) is twice the transfer rates. RAID 5 is not as efficient as RAID 10 when using the ICH10R controller.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 1:42:32 AM

Thanks...I was not sure about the transfer rate of the others. Raid 1 which I have read is : 1 drive mirrorrs and the other strippes and instead of 2TB...the system will only recognize the 2 drives as 1 TB versus...2TB in RAID 0 which does not provide any form of backup! Correct. Do I need to purchase a controller or just used the one that is part of the Mobo? I am learning all of this on the fly so my question may seem odd!
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 82 G Storage
January 6, 2013 2:57:59 AM

RAID 1 is mirroring. Why do you want or need RAID for what you use your system for? The onboard controller is fine unless you need more performance. Then you'd want a caching controller, but those are expensive.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 1:17:59 PM

I am seeking max performance from my rig and in the event my HDD crashes I will have a back up internally as well as externally.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 6, 2013 1:46:36 PM

Your stated purposes are similar to mine. I also do some office-type stuff, and could see doing a little programming again in the future, but I won't be rendering movies or crunching through huge databases. My system(s) are set up similarly to your initial description.
RAID does not eliminate the need for backups. Wikipedia of all places has some interesting information about RAID, including how and why RAIDs can fail.
In any case, I like your original plan best. Both of my own systems are set up with a SSD boot/system drive, a RAID1 data pair, and another drive which primarily holds image backups of the system drive. "Vital" data is copied onto both systems; the only thing I'm missing is offsite backup, but I think I've got a couple of CDs in a fire safe.
I would recommend against RAID5. TLER issues make it a very expensive proposition to do right, and even so the ways it can fail should give pause for thought.
The only time I'd even think about RAID0 is as a temporary working area for scratch files used in huge projects. Even then, a SSD for that purpose is likely to be faster.
m
0
l
Anonymous
January 6, 2013 2:13:50 PM

Raid is not worth the effort, two drives doubles the risk of a failure, three triples the risk and so on. If you want backup, then one Drive for data, 1 for backup and an external for second backup. Or invest in a Nas drive.

Honestly, it will tale longer re-building a raid array than just restoring a Backup from the internal 1TB backup drive or the External drive.

Raid 5 is specifically there for 2/3 the space and extra performance over raid 1 which uses 1/2 space and same or slightly less than a single drive. Raid 10 is just another whole level of complexity, and seriously, how fast do you need your storage to be.

The only Raid setup that makes sense in a Consumer Build is Raid 0 with 2 SSD as OS drive. This allows super fast SSD boot drive, (Mine tops at 980 MB Read and 820 Write) and I have the Raid 0 Array backing up to an internal storage drive for that sole purpose to restore the raid array when it goes wrong ( And trust me, its not if, but when) The its just, delete raid, re-set raid, restore image, 20 Mins up and running.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 6, 2013 2:49:36 PM

I disagree with almost everything there, at least without clarification. The risk-multiplying applies to RAID0, not to RAID1, although any RAID can fail.
RAID5 does not perform better than RAID1. RAID1 should offer faster reads than a single drive, but may have slower writes. Software-based RAID5 offers no performance advantages due to the parity calculations.
RAID0 in a consumer PC makes no sense. The speed difference over a single SSD is insignificant except in some benchmarks. Given that yes, the RAID will experience failure (especially if the drives are OCZ and/or Sandforce), the benefit isn't worth the cost. The only people who can justify that risk are pros with massive projects to render where the additional speed pays for itself; there again those RAID0 arrays are used as scratch disks, not for long term storage. There is no similar payoff for a consumer.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 6, 2013 3:23:07 PM

Anonymous said:
Raid is not worth the effort, two drives doubles the risk of a failure, three triples the risk and so on. If you want backup, then one Drive for data, 1 for backup and an external for second backup. Or invest in a Nas drive.

Honestly, it will tale longer re-building a raid array than just restoring a Backup from the internal 1TB backup drive or the External drive.

Raid 5 is specifically there for 2/3 the space and extra performance over raid 1 which uses 1/2 space and same or slightly less than a single drive. Raid 10 is just another whole level of complexity, and seriously, how fast do you need your storage to be.

The only Raid setup that makes sense in a Consumer Build is Raid 0 with 2 SSD as OS drive. This allows super fast SSD boot drive, (Mine tops at 980 MB Read and 820 Write) and I have the Raid 0 Array backing up to an internal storage drive for that sole purpose to restore the raid array when it goes wrong ( And trust me, its not if, but when) The its just, delete raid, re-set raid, restore image, 20 Mins up and running.


RAID is so worth it. I have 2ssds for OS plus 2 raid1 sets 2x2tb and 2x1tb. its 3tb of data that in the eventual failure of one drive (you know it will happen and it HAS already once for me) you can still access your info. Unless you have a house fire (inwhich case data loss is probably not your biggest issue) or electrical surge from a lightning strike, the chances for data loss are low. Even if you suggest that 2 drives doubles the risk of failure in RAID then you've also got twice the risk of data failure using 2 seperate drives. Only in RAID0 is this any real issue and if someone should use RAID0 and keep important data on that volume then some lessons are best learnt the hard way.
m
0
l
a c 89 G Storage
January 6, 2013 4:40:34 PM

Raid has a purpose. Backup is not it though. Speed and reliability(with redundancy) are the reasons for raid. For home setups, raid isn't usually worth the effort and costs, although some people still do it. Raid will not protect you from corrupt, deleted or overwritten files while a backup will.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 6, 2013 5:35:45 PM

ss202sl said:
Raid has a purpose. Backup is not it though. Speed and reliability(with redundancy) are the reasons for raid. For home setups, raid isn't usually worth the effort and costs, although some people still do it. Raid will not protect you from corrupt, deleted or overwritten files while a backup will.

Exactly. RAID1 can give you some redundancy that will hopefully reduce the likelihood of needing to restore a backup, but does nothing for file integrity, or to prevent accidental deletions or overwrites.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 5:47:28 PM

Anonymous said:
Raid is not worth the effort, two drives doubles the risk of a failure, three triples the risk and so on. If you want backup, then one Drive for data, 1 for backup and an external for second backup. Or invest in a Nas drive.


You're thinking of raid 0 (striping), not raid 1 (mirroring) or raid 5 (striping with parity)...(or raid 01, 10, 6). Raid 0 is the only type that increases the chance of failure. All other raid types decrease the chance of data loss.
m
0
l
a c 76 G Storage
January 9, 2013 8:05:38 PM

Onus said:
...RAID5 does not perform better than RAID1. RAID1 should offer faster reads than a single drive, but may have slower writes. Software-based RAID5 offers no performance advantages due to the parity calculations...


Disagree about RAID5 is slower than RAID1
Look at this video to see the RAID5 go over 230MB/sec.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynAsJ8kS-rk

This box using the same SPM394 , that I use and built to my customer systems
http://www.amazon.com/Port-Multiplier-SATA-hardware-con...
m
0
l
a c 76 G Storage
January 9, 2013 8:23:22 PM

Anonymous said:
Raid is not worth the effort, two drives doubles the risk of a failure, three triples the risk and so on. If you want backup, then one Drive for data, 1 for backup and an external for second backup. Or invest in a Nas drive.

...
Raid 5 is specifically there for 2/3 the space and extra performance over raid 1 which uses 1/2 space and same or slightly less than a single drive. Raid 10 is just another whole level of complexity, and seriously, how fast do you need your storage to be.
...


1st - NAS does come RAID1 or RAID5 - so invest in NAS what is the diff?
2nd - RAID5 space= HDD size * (N-1), where N is number of drives, i have no clue about 2/3 space that you refer to
3rd - RAID10 is not complex at all, it is a MIROR AND STRIPE, RAID5 and 6 is a complex RAID due to parity bit and all.
m
0
l
January 9, 2013 8:39:24 PM

Anonymous said:

Raid 5 is specifically there for 2/3 the space and extra performance over raid 1 which uses 1/2 space and same or slightly less than a single drive. Raid 10 is just another whole level of complexity, and seriously, how fast do you need your storage to be.


This is also somewhat wrong. Raid 5 uses 1 drive for parity, no more. If you have 3 drives, then yes, you have 2/3 the capacity of 3 drives. However If you have 5 drive in raid 5, it still only uses 1 drive for parity, and you have 4/5 the capacity. Every drive you add to raid 5 after the initial 3 give you 100% of its capacity.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 9:36:37 AM

I'm actually contemplating on doing a RAID setup. Recently I had a temporary scare when I thought I heard clicking sounds from my PC (which turned out to be a bad fan than a broken HD). However, I did note that all the hard drives I had were out of warranty now.

So rather than continuing to rely on them, I am planning to just replace 4 of the 2TB drives into a 2TB RAID-10 array and use the controller that comes with motherboard. I was thinking it would be much better than throwing the drives out and replacing them with new ones if they are stlil working (though probably on their last legs).
m
0
l
a c 906 G Storage
December 22, 2013 3:24:31 PM

In raid 5 the parity info is spread across all the drives, one drive is not dedicated to the task.

Raid 5 can be fast, not anywhere near as fast as raid0, and it depends on the implementation but maximum gain per drive added is at 5 drives typically and drives added after that add less performance per drive.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 5:08:34 PM

popatim said:
In raid 5 the parity info is spread across all the drives, one drive is not dedicated to the task.

Raid 5 can be fast, not anywhere near as fast as raid0, and it depends on the implementation but maximum gain per drive added is at 5 drives typically and drives added after that add less performance per drive.


We're talking in space terms; One drive's worth of space is dedicated to parity, no matter how many drives are in raid 5.

Your scaling comment is misleading; implying raid 0 does not reach a plateau. raid 0 hits a similar ceiling as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/RAID-SCALING-CHARTS...

In a practical application, raid 5 is capable higher speeds than raid 0 for the simple fact that (almost) no one's going to put 5 drives in raid 0.

Finally, since the OP is using an ssd for OS/programs and HDD's for storage, putting them in raid 0 is pretty silly to begin with.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 22, 2013 6:45:13 PM

Did any of you guys notice this thread was necrotic?
m
0
l
March 4, 2014 7:41:24 AM

You are all wrong. RAID is used as a back up for data centers and server farms. In any event, if you want to suggest raid is not good as a back up then nothing is. If for instance you use a single disk to back up another single disk or raid array, any file corruption will be backed up as well. So in the end, if protection is the goal, RAID 1 serves the purpose. As for RAID 0, while it is true that with todays SSDs any performance gain from a RAID 0 is insignificant, the usefulness of a RAID 0 for SSDs is to increase the capacity beyond what is available from a single drive. Let us assume you wish to build a rig and for some reason desire that your OS and applications reside on a drive greater than 1TB. Since the last time I checked the largest SSD I had seen was 1TB, it would be possible to configure any combination of drives together to achieve the goal. I personally do not think it necessary to have such a large "C" drive but might have a couple of SSDs laying around, say a 128g and a 256g that I wish to stripe as one drive in a RAID 0 to host my OS and apps. Internally I always build my rigs with a second drive(s) to store all data used by the apps or produced (i.e.. photos, docs, music, video etc etc) so that if my OS is struck down by a virus, or suffers corruption rendering it non bootable and I have no other computer laying around to mount the drive to as to get the data off of it, my data remains safe and secure on the other drive which in my case is always 2 drives mirrored in a RAID 1 configuration. The same would also apply to a primary drive with a mechanical failure or SSD primary which has reached the end of it read/write life and can no longer be mined for data.

So, to summarize:

1) RAID 0 for greater primary drive size (creating an image immediately after OS, apps, & printer(s) install for back up in the event of failure, saves the time of reinstalling everything, Image can be stored on dvds or flash drive)

2) RAID 1 with conventional enterprise class HDDs as an internal storage drive...drive F.

3) Single HDD Back up of RAID (periodically done and stored in a safe)

4) Burn important docs and photos and home movies to DVD or bluray. Commercially available movies and music that may have been ripped can be re ripped from the original source.

5) There is no back up for natural disasters other than off site unless one has a tornado/hurricane shelter at home and a waterproof safe!
m
0
l
a c 906 G Storage
March 4, 2014 5:33:38 PM

You obviously are misinformed. Raid is never a backup in any data center. In a data center I can practically guarantee backups are done to tape. They have been in all the data centers I have worked in, including the one with 200+ servers 15 feet from me. The only thing bigger than the tape libraries are the a/c units and the UPS's.

1: Raid 0 as a primary drive is an awful suggestion for most users. Unless you have a high end raid card there are no utilities that can restore to a raid0

2: If you do backups the raid 1 is useless. an errors of file deletions happen immediately to the other drive. Better to use the 2nd drive as a backup

3: a single drive backup is ok but I prefer and recommend at least two backups, one of which can be DVD/BR


4 & 5: I agree with.
m
0
l
a c 906 G Storage
March 4, 2014 5:48:20 PM

quilciri said:
popatim said:
In raid 5 the parity info is spread across all the drives, one drive is not dedicated to the task.

Raid 5 can be fast, not anywhere near as fast as raid0, and it depends on the implementation but maximum gain per drive added is at 5 drives typically and drives added after that add less performance per drive.


We're talking in space terms; One drive's worth of space is dedicated to parity, no matter how many drives are in raid 5.


You are the one who said 1 drive was used for parity, I was merely clarifying the information.

Quote:
Your scaling comment is misleading; implying raid 0 does not reach a plateau. raid 0 hits a similar ceiling as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/RAID-SCALING-CHARTS...

Raid 0 scales nearly linearly to the limits of the controller. Perhaps you missed the comment right below the chart in your link
Quote:
Obviously, some component of our test system - either the RAID controller or the motherboard - created a bottleneck for our 6, 7 and 8 drive arrays. In theory, the PCI Express x4 interface should be capable of transporting 1 GB/s.


Quote:
In a practical application, raid 5 is capable higher speeds than raid 0 for the simple fact that (almost) no one's going to put 5 drives in raid 0.
I know many people who have 4 drive raid 0's and an 5 drive raid 5 is not as fast. Sorry but drives being equal a raid 0 array of comparable size will be faster than a raid 5. Raid 5 will of course be the safer option in terms of drive failure.

Quote:
Finally, since the OP is using an ssd for OS/programs and HDD's for storage, putting them in raid 0 is pretty silly to begin with.


Silly? i think " inexperienced " is a better term.
m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
March 4, 2014 5:54:04 PM

Quote:
You are all wrong. RAID is used as a back up for data centers and server farms.


Absolutely incorrect. It is for continued operation in case of a drive fail. Any farm, data center, or business that employs RAID also has an actual backup. I know we do.

Why do they use RAID? Downtime = lost money.
If this rig is not generating actual income, there is very little need for it, outside hobby messing around.

RAID is not a backup.
m
0
l
March 5, 2014 5:32:09 AM

popatim said:
You obviously are misinformed. Raid is never a backup in any data center. In a data center I can practically guarantee backups are done to tape. They have been in all the data centers I have worked in, including the one with 200+ servers 15 feet from me. The only thing bigger than the tape libraries are the a/c units and the UPS's.

1: Raid 0 as a primary drive is an awful suggestion for most users. Unless you have a high end raid card there are no utilities that can restore to a raid0

2: If you do backups the raid 1 is useless. an errors of file deletions happen immediately to the other drive. Better to use the 2nd drive as a backup

3: a single drive backup is ok but I prefer and recommend at least two backups, one of which can be DVD/BR


4 & 5: I agree with.


m
0
l
March 5, 2014 9:34:06 PM

Hi popatim,

I think you are wrong about tape and misunderstood my post as it pertains to items 1,2,3. First of all tape storage in data centers, while still employed as a backup, is in decline and has been for quite awhile. As for a RAID array for the primary drive, if you read my post, which was addressing someone else's post, i simply said the only, I repeat, only reason to RAID the primary drive would be to increase the capacity of the primary drive if one were using SSDs. I personally do not se a need in this respect as I don't see any reason for a primary HDD larger than 500gigs. In fact 256 is sufficient but price wise 500gigs are a better deal. The only purpose of the primary drive should be to host the OS and any programs/ apps. All data generated and used by those programs should be stored on a dedicated storage drive which in the boxes I build is my internal "F" drive configured with another identical drive as RAID 1. Beyond that I employ RAID Back ups which are backed up again to a single drive and as stated earlier ultimately burned to DVD/BluRay.
m
0
l
!