Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raid 0

Last response: in Storage
Share
September 12, 2002 2:18:55 PM

I am about to build myself a new system, and am considering doing a RAID 0. I've never done a RAID before, but am intrigued to see how much faster the system would go, and because I love building systems, and would like to have done a RAID at least once.

Is it any less reliable than running one HDD? Does it shorten the life span of the HDD? I don't want to do it if I'm going to have to constantly redo the system because of the RAID, but if everyone has had no problems, then I would love to.

Any comments would be appreciated!

Tim

More about : raid

September 12, 2002 2:41:40 PM

With RAID 0 if you lose one hard drive you lose all the data because it is split between the two.

---------------

Stupidity should be painful.
September 12, 2002 2:54:32 PM

That's fine. I've only ever had one hard drive that I've partitioned anyway. Luckily I haven't had one go yet, but if it did, I would lose everything anyway. I do back up once a month though. :-)

Other than that, there are no issues with RAID 0 though? Nothing more than normal computing woes?
Related resources
September 13, 2002 1:31:10 AM

There shouldnt be, if done right. Avoid software raid... it can be problematic. Hardware raid is best.

and yes, backup regularly. only one of the two drives has to die to kill all data. so the chances of your array dying = odd of first drive dying PLUS odds of second dying.

only other cosideration with raid0 is what stripe size to use. The FAQ briefly covers this, and has links to a detailed explination of stripe sizes.


<b><font color=orange>My <font color=green>life <font color=red>has <font color=blue>been <font color=black>so <font color=purple>much <font color=yellow>more <font color=orange>colourful <font color=green>since <font color=blue>the <font color=red>advent <font color=black>of <font color=purple>Super <font color=red>VGA! :lol: 
September 13, 2002 5:48:56 AM

Quote:
so the chances of your array dying = odd of first drive dying PLUS odds of second dying.

Dont take it personal. I just dont like to see wrong math. Actually the probability of failure of a RAID0 array is:

PR0=1-(1-P1)(1-P2)...(1-PN)

where P1,P2..PN is the probability of failure of the individual drives. For small probabilities it just happens to approximate N*Px.
September 13, 2002 6:02:03 AM

hehehe.
just knew that there had to be some smartie pants around :wink:
good going

<b><font color=orange>My <font color=green>life <font color=red>has <font color=blue>been <font color=black>so <font color=purple>much <font color=yellow>more <font color=orange>colourful <font color=green>since <font color=blue>the <font color=red>advent <font color=black>of <font color=purple>Super <font color=red>VGA! :lol: 
September 13, 2002 1:01:27 PM

Go ahead an make a hardware RAID0 setup. Its pretty neat and fast. In reality you would be extremely unlucky to have any HD problems. Using HDs in RAID mode is not more stressfull or likely to cause individual disks to die.
September 13, 2002 1:08:42 PM

Quote:
Using HDs in RAID mode is not more stressfull or likely to cause individual disks to die.

I dont agree. If you have two individual drives, and you access data, only the drive where the data is located is operating/seeking. However, if you have the drives in RAID0, BOTH drives are operating/seeking each time any data is accessed. I would say thats more stressfull.
September 13, 2002 3:00:51 PM

Keep in mind that also, its not just the hdd failing that can screw things up. If the mobo fails to. Also, dont trust it right away. I learned the hardway with an Abit kx7-333r. I had my soundcard using the same irq as the raid controller. So ever time I got my soundcard working, my controller would corrupt the OS and because of this I lost like 3 months of data. You really might want to have some backup.

If an orange was driving a racecar would it peel out? www.jxfiles.com
September 14, 2002 3:57:16 PM

Quote:
I would say thats more stressfull.

The most stress is placed on a HD during spin up so this is when your HD is most likely to die. Seek operations are not particularly stressfull in comparison. In any event, I think the question meant "does RAID0 stress your HD above and beyond normal usage?". The answer is no, but clearly it stresses it more than if the drive was not being used.
September 14, 2002 9:18:09 PM

Look at it this way:

A) You're not running a server for a business.
B) There's at least 200 other people in this forum who have a hard disk that's over 3 years old.
C) If one does go bad, you were the unlikely bastard out of the 100,000 others, and you'll probably get the next version drive by the time it goes out and you RMA it.

A two drive raid0 is a very good risk. A three drive raid0 makes me sweat just a tiny little bit. A four drive raid0 makes my sphinter clinch and my pupils dialate...

P@ll4dium f0r L1f3!
September 15, 2002 3:16:46 PM

I have 2 40-gig drives and an MSI KT3 Ultra-ARU Mother Board. I use hardware raid0 and then used Part. Magic to split them into two 40's again. One is used for system and program files, the other for games and downloads.

I look at it like this; If one of my drives fails, I loose everything. If I go get an 80-gig drive and it fails, I loose everything. The 80-gig drive is not even close to the speed of my raided 40's.

My question is are their any boards out yet that has <A HREF="http://www.acnc.com/04_01_03.html" target="_new">Raid3</A> on board that are aimed at the general public (not a server board)? This would be the best form of raid for me. I mean what’s the cost of adding another 40-gig drive compared to having to back up 80-gig every time I add something I don’t want to loose?


-N-

<b><font color=blue>Paramedics - Does this mean there is always two of them ?</font color=blue></b>

<b><font color=red><A HREF="http://www.nialm.com\rig.htm" target="_new">My Rig</A></font color=red></b>
!