Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Redundant Storage Solution

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
April 1, 2005 3:56:58 AM

Hey All -

New to the forum, just thought I'd throw this one out there....

Currently I have an ABIT IC7-MAX3 mobo with a 3.0 P4 in the rig. I have a single SATA 160GB hard disk that host my o/s and software etc. Then as some of you MAX3 also has 2 IDE channels. On one of them I have 2 CD/DVD Burners. But more importantly I have another one of those channels with Two 60 gb hard disks.

These hard disks are probably one of my most important possesions. They contain all my data from college work to mp3 to pictures you name it. So on this IDE channel I have two drives lets call them store1 and store2. By default I store all my work/information on store1. Then on every monday and friday Norton's Ghost backs up the contents of store1 to store 2.

The problem exists that I have outgrown the size of these drives and I need to replace them. Which is why I have come to you folks. I've never done much with raid so I'm not quite sure how it would work. I don't know if raid is even a better solution than what I have.

What I plan on doing in the next few days is replacing the two IDEs with two 160gb drives. So I would have a total of 3 x 160gb hard disks. I really like the way I keep the data stored right now and I would hate to move to cds. I know my method isn't foolproof but its the best I can think of. I plan on buying two different manuf's drives so if there's a problem with the line I won't loose both, as odd as it would be for both to go down at once.

Would a particular mode of raid work? I breifly read over some websites and I saw one that said the storage would be 1/2'ed. That is unacceptable. My Storage then is only 80 gb or so which will not be enough. I'm not really concerned about the speed of the performance of these drives since I won't be running things from them.

Yes they are important, but I can get two 160s for under 200. The abit has an onboard raid chip so I belive I can use that. The point is I don't plan on going out and spending money on high end scsi disks or etc...

Suggestions? Comments? Clarifications?

THANKS

More about : redundant storage solution

April 1, 2005 4:48:38 AM

If you're RAID controller support RAID 5, then I'd give that a try. Otherwise, you can go with RAID 1 - the same info will be burned on both drives at the same time. I'm not sur ehow well the RAID will like having different mfr drives...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
April 1, 2005 2:09:44 PM

Generally, RAID will work across drives of different models but I prefer to make sure that they are all the same model. Sometimes strange problems can occur if they are the same model, so it's just easier to avoid that possibility.

Personally, I would use RAID 1 for you.

It's just a bit easier to manage, and a bit easier to make sure you have what you want to have backed up.

You already said that the data is important to you, and currently ALL of your data is in your pc. You are protected against a single drive failure but you currently have no protection from a double drive failure or if your PC gets taken. (In my experience double drive failures mostly occur do to heat problems, or power supply failutres.)

If the drives are just mirrored then you can easily make copies. The easiest solution would be to get a RAID card that supports 4 drives. That way you could mirror your data drives and then assign one as a hot spare.

If you wanted a backup outside of your computer you could -fail- one of the data drives. (Removing it physically, or if you had removeable drive carriers just popping it out.) The hot spare would then take over and data would be remirrored to that. Very little interaction would be required. You wouldn't have to replace the hot spare until the next time you wanted to make a backup outside of your system.

RAID 5 would enable you to use volumes with larger capacities, and since you have run out of room this would be a solution to that. (If mirrored you would end up with two mirrored volumes to get the extra space while with RAID 5 you will have one bigger volume.)

RAID 5 still only protects against single drive failures. Additionally, you would not have any method of getting an offline backup in case of extreme issues.

Another issue with RAID 5 is that there are much greater variations in the speed and effectiveness of the RAID controllers where with RAID 1 performance is a little more easily defined and found.

RAID 5 configurations are tied to your controller as well. Usually, if the RAID controller fails you would need to MATCH the failed controller in order to regain access to your data. In mirroring this is rarely the case anymore. (I don't think ANY of the low-end, mid-range RAID controllers in RAID 1 impose a dependency on the controler card itself anymore.)

I just like mirroring because it's clean and simple. I ONLY use RAID 5 when I need larger volumes and ONLY when I have tape backup capability as well.
Related resources
April 1, 2005 2:09:45 PM

Generally, RAID will work across drives of different models but I prefer to make sure that they are all the same model. Sometimes strange problems can occur if they are the same model, so it's just easier to avoid that possibility.

Personally, I would use RAID 1 for you.

It's just a bit easier to manage, and a bit easier to make sure you have what you want to have backed up.

You already said that the data is important to you, and currently ALL of your data is in your pc. You are protected against a single drive failure but you currently have no protection from a double drive failure or if your PC gets taken. (In my experience double drive failures mostly occur do to heat problems, or power supply failutres.)

If the drives are just mirrored then you can easily make copies. The easiest solution would be to get a RAID card that supports 4 drives. That way you could mirror your data drives and then assign one as a hot spare.

If you wanted a backup outside of your computer you could -fail- one of the data drives. (Removing it physically, or if you had removeable drive carriers just popping it out.) The hot spare would then take over and data would be remirrored to that. Very little interaction would be required. You wouldn't have to replace the hot spare until the next time you wanted to make a backup outside of your system.

RAID 5 would enable you to use volumes with larger capacities, and since you have run out of room this would be a solution to that. (If mirrored you would end up with two mirrored volumes to get the extra space while with RAID 5 you will have one bigger volume.)

RAID 5 still only protects against single drive failures. Additionally, you would not have any method of getting an offline backup in case of extreme issues.

Another issue with RAID 5 is that there are much greater variations in the speed and effectiveness of the RAID controllers where with RAID 1 performance is a little more easily defined and found.

RAID 5 configurations are tied to your controller as well. Usually, if the RAID controller fails you would need to MATCH the failed controller in order to regain access to your data. In mirroring this is rarely the case anymore. (I don't think ANY of the low-end, mid-range RAID controllers in RAID 1 impose a dependency on the controler card itself anymore.)

I just like mirroring because it's clean and simple. I ONLY use RAID 5 when I need larger volumes and ONLY when I have tape backup capability as well.
April 1, 2005 5:33:28 PM

<i>>I don't know if raid is even a better solution than what I have.</i>

It is. <A HREF="http://www.raid.com/04_01_01.html" target="_new">RAID1</A> will mean all your data is simultaneously and identically written to 2 drives, as opposed to copying it across once per week.

To set up RAID1 just hook up both drives, format them, make them dynamic drives and then setup then up for mirroring in WindowsXP. That way whenever you write data to one drive you will write to both at the same time. You will only see 1 drive of 160GB but rest assured you have 2 identical drives, if 1 dies all your data will be safely on the 2nd drive.

<i>> I breifly read over some websites and I saw one that said the storage would be 1/2'ed.</i>

That's correct. You have 2 160GB drives with a total storage capacity of 320GB, by putting them in RAID1 you sacrifice 1/2 of your total storage capacity so Windows will show just 1 drive of 160GB.
!