Grizely1
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,810
- 0
- 30,780
RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independent Disks" (pretty sure). Basically there are a bunch of types of RAID (the only ones I am familliar with are RAID 0, RAID 0+1, and RAID 1, and RAID uses IDE):
<b>RAID 0</b>
Joining two hard drives together to create one.
DATASTREAM
| |
HD1 HD1
thats RAID 0
RAID <b>1</b>
The backing up of a hard drive (kinda). Ok so you have two 40GB hard drives. One is the one you are using. As your computer reads/writes data and stuff, it does the exact same thing to both drives, so if one fails you can just use the other and everything will be the same.
<b>RAID 0+1</b>
A mixture of raid 0 and raid 1. Can be used with 4 or 8 hard drives.
Two hard drives are in RAID 0, and another two are backing up the first two, just like in RAID 1.
<b>RAID 0</b>
Joining two hard drives together to create one.
DATASTREAM
| |
HD1 HD1
thats RAID 0
RAID <b>1</b>
The backing up of a hard drive (kinda). Ok so you have two 40GB hard drives. One is the one you are using. As your computer reads/writes data and stuff, it does the exact same thing to both drives, so if one fails you can just use the other and everything will be the same.
<b>RAID 0+1</b>
A mixture of raid 0 and raid 1. Can be used with 4 or 8 hard drives.
Two hard drives are in RAID 0, and another two are backing up the first two, just like in RAID 1.
i'm not totally sure about how raid works so someone may be able to elaborate, but basically this is how it goes...
raid-0 is an array where 2 drives are treated as one logical drive. this allows data to be written to both drives at the same time (the data isn't repeated). what this does is...let's say you have a 10meg file, normally the data is written sequentially to the hard drive starting with the first piece, then the second, then the third, etc... with a raid-0 setup, the first piece of data is written at the same time the second is written (because there are 2 drives, each drive gets a piece of data), the third is written at the same time as the fourth, etc... while i don't think this method literally doubles data transfer, you can see how it would be faster going two pieces of data at a time instead of one. the difference between ide and scsi (i think) is that scsi can handle i/o requests simultaneously whereas ide can only handle one at a time. note: there are a few tipes of raid arrays. i just mentioned raid-0. there is an array (raid-1?) where the data is written to both drives but instead of there being one file in the end, raid-1 is used to create backups so the data is repeated on the drives (i.e. 2 copies of the file). i'm pretty sure i didn't say anything wrong but i'm sure my thoughts are incomplete ro possibly confusing...
raid-0 is an array where 2 drives are treated as one logical drive. this allows data to be written to both drives at the same time (the data isn't repeated). what this does is...let's say you have a 10meg file, normally the data is written sequentially to the hard drive starting with the first piece, then the second, then the third, etc... with a raid-0 setup, the first piece of data is written at the same time the second is written (because there are 2 drives, each drive gets a piece of data), the third is written at the same time as the fourth, etc... while i don't think this method literally doubles data transfer, you can see how it would be faster going two pieces of data at a time instead of one. the difference between ide and scsi (i think) is that scsi can handle i/o requests simultaneously whereas ide can only handle one at a time. note: there are a few tipes of raid arrays. i just mentioned raid-0. there is an array (raid-1?) where the data is written to both drives but instead of there being one file in the end, raid-1 is used to create backups so the data is repeated on the drives (i.e. 2 copies of the file). i'm pretty sure i didn't say anything wrong but i'm sure my thoughts are incomplete ro possibly confusing...
---"Would you rather have two 30 gig hardrives or one 60gig. One 80gig or two 40's? Same specs on all"---
my personal preference is separate drives. i know a drive can be partitioned to separate data (like the os from storage) but i like to have dedicated drives for everything. at the moment, i have a 30gig for windows and all programs that get installed (integrate with the registry) and i use the free space as transient storage (i.e. video editing). i also have a 40gig drive for storage, basically all media (movies, mp3's, documents, etc...anything that does not integrate into the registry). i also plan on getting a third drive for windows2000. basically, i like to totally separate everything. the downside is that the larger the hard drive, the larger the block size, which creates a lot of slack space with small files. however, my thinking is that with 30gigs or more, a few hundred megs of slack space (this doesn't occur as much if you have all big files) is acceptable in order to keep everything separate.
my personal preference is separate drives. i know a drive can be partitioned to separate data (like the os from storage) but i like to have dedicated drives for everything. at the moment, i have a 30gig for windows and all programs that get installed (integrate with the registry) and i use the free space as transient storage (i.e. video editing). i also have a 40gig drive for storage, basically all media (movies, mp3's, documents, etc...anything that does not integrate into the registry). i also plan on getting a third drive for windows2000. basically, i like to totally separate everything. the downside is that the larger the hard drive, the larger the block size, which creates a lot of slack space with small files. however, my thinking is that with 30gigs or more, a few hundred megs of slack space (this doesn't occur as much if you have all big files) is acceptable in order to keep everything separate.
well, if you have one hard-drive and it goes down, you loose data. If you have two hard-drives and one goes down, you loose data.
So if one drive fails, your problems are the same between two RAID or one NON_RAID drives. The only thing is that when you have two drives, you have increased chances that one of them will fail. It doesn't bother me personally much, it only becomes a factor really when you have 10 drives in RAID 0, then it seems really stupid that you loose all if one of them gives up. Or imagine loosing data on 100 HDs if one fails... which is why serious businesses use other RAID configurations...
Anyhoo, to implement RAID 0: You need a controller that does that, either add-on RAID controller like Promise, or a motherboard that has a built in controller like Abit KT7-RAID.
It is prefered, for simplicity sake that you have two identical drives. I'm not sure that they have to be, but I wouldn't personally explore other options other than for theoretical amusement
So if one drive fails, your problems are the same between two RAID or one NON_RAID drives. The only thing is that when you have two drives, you have increased chances that one of them will fail. It doesn't bother me personally much, it only becomes a factor really when you have 10 drives in RAID 0, then it seems really stupid that you loose all if one of them gives up. Or imagine loosing data on 100 HDs if one fails... which is why serious businesses use other RAID configurations...
Anyhoo, to implement RAID 0: You need a controller that does that, either add-on RAID controller like Promise, or a motherboard that has a built in controller like Abit KT7-RAID.
It is prefered, for simplicity sake that you have two identical drives. I'm not sure that they have to be, but I wouldn't personally explore other options other than for theoretical amusement
as far as data loss, i looked for info and found that the following statement is repeated a lot in reference to
raid-0: "Its disadvantage is that if one drive fails, all the data on it is lost and cannot be recovered from the rest of the array"
if you want to learn more (since i am at the limit of my knowledge on the subject) i found a couple of articles you could read:
<A HREF="http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/00q1/000329/index.html" target="_new">article 1</A>
<A HREF="http://www.psidisk.com/aboutRAID.html" target="_new">article 2</A>
<A HREF="http://www.techcentral.ie/cgi-bin/SiteWrapper.pl?template=/magazines/ComputerScope/article_template.html&target=/magazines/ComputerScope/1995/Sep/Features-2.html" target="_new">article 3</A>
if you do a search you can find a ton of additional articles
raid-0: "Its disadvantage is that if one drive fails, all the data on it is lost and cannot be recovered from the rest of the array"
if you want to learn more (since i am at the limit of my knowledge on the subject) i found a couple of articles you could read:
<A HREF="http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/00q1/000329/index.html" target="_new">article 1</A>
<A HREF="http://www.psidisk.com/aboutRAID.html" target="_new">article 2</A>
<A HREF="http://www.techcentral.ie/cgi-bin/SiteWrapper.pl?template=/magazines/ComputerScope/article_template.html&target=/magazines/ComputerScope/1995/Sep/Features-2.html" target="_new">article 3</A>
if you do a search you can find a ton of additional articles
Seriously what are the odds of a hard drive falure. I ahve had 7 Hard Drives running for a combined total of 23 years. I have only had one with a total los of data. None of the others have lost any data at all.
May Fortune Favor The Foolish
May Fortune Favor The Foolish
i wasn't saying that there is a good chance a drive will fail, i was just quoting a source saying that *if* a drive fails, there would be total data loss. personally, i have never had a drive fail (total of 6 drives) and due to price drops and size increases i end up swapping drives frequently. i have never used a raid setup, nor do i have much knowledge about them...and i never claimed i did. i was just offering information that i found in response to someone's inquiry.
no, you're absolutely right -- if one drive fails, all data is lost.
However, same is true if you have one big drive -- if one drive fails, all data is lost!
The only reason RAID 0 is risky in large arrays is that you increase the chance of ONE disk failing when you have more drives.
I wouldn't worry about it with two drives, but it doesn't make sense for a company with array of 100 drives with critical data
However, same is true if you have one big drive -- if one drive fails, all data is lost!
The only reason RAID 0 is risky in large arrays is that you increase the chance of ONE disk failing when you have more drives.
I wouldn't worry about it with two drives, but it doesn't make sense for a company with array of 100 drives with critical data
and yes, I personally think increased speed is worth the risk.
You don't get quite double the performance, but you increase it by at least 40% -- which is great considering that Windows is so hungry for virtual memory
If you get two decent drives (I am going with two 46.1GB IBM Deskstars), you should have a fast, reliable system
You don't get quite double the performance, but you increase it by at least 40% -- which is great considering that Windows is so hungry for virtual memory
If you get two decent drives (I am going with two 46.1GB IBM Deskstars), you should have a fast, reliable system
RAID is used by Networks and large institutions where any other method of backing up may not be practical, for an average user its easier to back up to zip or jaz drives
There is another thing to keep in mind here tho:
Yes a RAID array would increase speed overall, but you will need a RAID card unless its on your mobo already.
Second, if you have 2 seperate HDs, they get filled up faster individually of course. And that being the case, you should know that as you fill up a HD, you run into degradation in seek times. As you near the last i beleive its 20% of a HD, you get like only 50% of the performance (check those numbers...im trying to remember exactly, and dont yell if im off..but i wont be off by much~!)
Synopsis: If you go can go RAID, yes you may want to, aside from that tho, go with one bigger drive.
I will admit tho, with the sizes im seeing of the new super huge HDs out there..i dont know how much seek times will slow down when looking thru 80 gigs or more. Unless the RPMs go way up. Id say, if you were thinking in terms of 80 or more, then yeah get yerself 2 40`s and go RAID (cause you could prob afford it, and make use of it as well..or else what in the hell would you need an 80 gig or more HD for..? LOL)
But if your thinking more in terms of one 40 or 2 20`s, or even one 60 or two 30`s..and you dont wanna go with a RAID, then id definately say go single.
And defiantley go IBM 75 GXP..theyre the best IDEs out there now, hands down.
Rama
" He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"
Yes a RAID array would increase speed overall, but you will need a RAID card unless its on your mobo already.
Second, if you have 2 seperate HDs, they get filled up faster individually of course. And that being the case, you should know that as you fill up a HD, you run into degradation in seek times. As you near the last i beleive its 20% of a HD, you get like only 50% of the performance (check those numbers...im trying to remember exactly, and dont yell if im off..but i wont be off by much~!)
Synopsis: If you go can go RAID, yes you may want to, aside from that tho, go with one bigger drive.
I will admit tho, with the sizes im seeing of the new super huge HDs out there..i dont know how much seek times will slow down when looking thru 80 gigs or more. Unless the RPMs go way up. Id say, if you were thinking in terms of 80 or more, then yeah get yerself 2 40`s and go RAID (cause you could prob afford it, and make use of it as well..or else what in the hell would you need an 80 gig or more HD for..? LOL)
But if your thinking more in terms of one 40 or 2 20`s, or even one 60 or two 30`s..and you dont wanna go with a RAID, then id definately say go single.
And defiantley go IBM 75 GXP..theyre the best IDEs out there now, hands down.
Rama
" He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"
Again, depend of your needs,man!~
What's you are trying to do with it,ot them?
Can't buit the house, not knowing what to do with it?
What's you are trying to do with it,ot them?
Can't buit the house, not knowing what to do with it?
I would appreciate thoughts from you folks about which model of SCSI RAID controller to use. I have 2 SCSI 9mb IBM's in which I use one as a portable backup. I'm thinking of hooking them up in a RAID 0 (I have a free PCI slot) & buying a 18mb IBM to use as the backup.
I'm familiar with SCSI but new to RAID.
TIA, Peter
SCSI,P2-400-112bus,ASUS P2BS,256MB, Marox G400max,Dual-Head & 2 monitors,IBM 9mb 7,200,W98se.
I'm familiar with SCSI but new to RAID.
TIA, Peter
SCSI,P2-400-112bus,ASUS P2BS,256MB, Marox G400max,Dual-Head & 2 monitors,IBM 9mb 7,200,W98se.
hi my name is marc and my dad brought a 2004 or 03 vaio. As i first saw with the system i saw one drive which was a C: drive, but it gave me a choice to split it so i had split it but the drive that im using is only 15 gb and i only have 7 gb left so i want to combine it back to one drive. can anyone help me.
freshazzburu
Distinguished
- Feb 12, 2007
- 103
- 0
- 18,680
Wow...this must be a THG record! You revived an 8 year old thread!
You need a hard drive utility (ie Partition Magic) that manages partitions since it seems you need something easy to use.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram