Holy Guacamole!

Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I've always wondered if it's possible to have both RAID 0 and RAID 1 at the same time, so you get both the extra speed and the extra reliability, only needing four drives... or 24 (or 48).
 
Luis G

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Inkara1 said:
I've always wondered if it's possible to have both RAID 0 and RAID 1 at the same time, so you get both the extra speed and the extra reliability, only needing four drives... or 24 (or 48).
Click to expand...

That's 0+1 or 1+0, but as chcr said, it is better to use RAID 5
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
/me reds on the different RAIDS

Would RAID 5 give the speed of RAID 0 with the protection of RAID 1, though?
 
pc_builder

pc_builder

New Member
Though the SSDs would be quiet, the video card fans, cpu coolers, extra case fans, and the two 1000w psu's might make quite a racket.

I wouldn't build a system like that so I could open 53 programs in 18 seconds though. I would like to have a system like that though, so I could play all the latest games... possibly at the same time. :lol:
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I think flavored avacadoes would gum up 24 RAID drives, religious or not
 
Altron

Altron

Well-Known Member
Inkara1 said:
/me reds on the different RAIDS

Would RAID 5 give the speed of RAID 0 with the protection of RAID 1, though?
Click to expand...

It's a compromise. There's parity bits, so in any given RAID 5 array, you can have one drive fail without losing any data. If a drive fails, you need to replace it immediately and rebuild the array from the parity bits on the other drives. If two drives fail, you're up shit creek.

As for speed, I've never used one, but it's definitely faster than RAID 1 or a regular drive. It might be a little slower than RAID 0, but the only people who use RAID 0 are people who don't use it for anything critical, who can afford to spend 6 hours restoring from an external backup if one drive fails.
 
chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
Altron said:
It's a compromise. There's parity bits, so in any given RAID 5 array, you can have one drive fail without losing any data. If a drive fails, you need to replace it immediately and rebuild the array from the parity bits on the other drives. If two drives fail, you're up shit creek.

As for speed, I've never used one, but it's definitely faster than RAID 1 or a regular drive. It might be a little slower than RAID 0, but the only people who use RAID 0 are people who don't use it for anything critical, who can afford to spend 6 hours restoring from an external backup if one drive fails.
Click to expand...

The RAID 5 I run (Adaptec SAS but I'm not sure of the version) (oh, and this is at work of course, overkill for home) automatically rebuilds the array on the fly when you have to replace a drive. Since I run 5 drives it will also downsize the array to 4 or 3 (depending on needed space) if a drive fails and can't be immediately replaced. I'm not sure about RAID 5 on a SATA controller. I run RAID 0 with two 320 gig drives at home (backed up to DVDRWs) but my controller only offers 0 or 1.


Oh yeah, no guacamole either.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Altron said:
the only people who use RAID 0 are people who don't use it for anything critical, who can afford to spend 6 hours restoring from an external backup if one drive fails.
Click to expand...

That's the idea behind using RAID 0 and RAID 1 at once. It would require four drives at minimum, but then you get the speed of RAID 0 by using two drives for that, yet the reliability of RAID 1 by having each of your two RAID 0 drives mirrored.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
guacamole-sdb.jpg


Guacamole Bacon Six Dollar Burger... 1100 calories and worth every single one.
 
Luis G

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Inkara1 said:
/me reds on the different RAIDS

Would RAID 5 give the speed of RAID 0 with the protection of RAID 1, though?
Click to expand...

It gives more or less the speed of RAID 0, as the stripes are also distributed among the array.

In RAID 5 the information can be recovered only if 1 disk fails, whereas in RAID 1 you can recover the information with as little as half array (one entire mirrored copy lost) or you can lose it with 2 faulty drives (mirror and 'original' of the same stripe).

All in all, multiple disk failures at the same time are rare. RAID 5 is widely used because it has speed, protection and the space penalty is not that big, whereas RAID 1 is slow, has great protection but the cost in space is 50%.
 
chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
Luis G said:
It gives more or less the speed of RAID 0, as the stripes are also distributed among the array.

In RAID 5 the information can be recovered only if 1 disk fails, whereas in RAID 1 you can recover the information with as little as half array (one entire mirrored copy lost) or you can lose it with 2 faulty drives (mirror and 'original' of the same stripe).

All in all, multiple disk failures at the same time are rare. RAID 5 is widely used because it has speed, protection and the space penalty is not that big, whereas RAID 1 is slow, has great protection but the cost in space is 50%.
Click to expand...
Well explained. Have you ever heard of anyone mirroring a RAID 0 array? Is it even possible?

Oh, and Inky? I personally prefer the guacamole bacon burger at Red Robin.
 
pc_builder

pc_builder

New Member
chcr said:
Well explained. Have you ever heard of anyone mirroring a RAID 0 array? Is it even possible?
Click to expand...

I would assume it's possible, according to what I've read.

RAID 0+1: striped sets in a mirrored set (minimum four disks; even number of disks) provides fault tolerance and improved performance but increases complexity. The key difference from RAID 1+0 is that RAID 0+1 creates a second striped set to mirror a primary striped set. The array continues to operate with one or more drives failed in the same mirror set, but if drives fail on both sides of the mirror the data on the RAID system is lost.
RAID 1+0: mirrored sets in a striped set (minimum four disks; even number of disks) provides fault tolerance and improved performance but increases complexity. The key difference from RAID 0+1 is that RAID 1+0 creates a striped set from a series of mirrored drives. In a failed disk situation, RAID 1+0 performs better because all the remaining disks continue to be used. The array can sustain multiple drive losses so long as no mirror loses all its drives.
RAID 5+0: stripe across distributed parity RAID systems.
RAID 5+1: mirror striped set with distributed parity (some manufacturers label this as RAID 53).
Click to expand...

source

Edit: I've never set up or worked with RAID arrays. So I don't know anything about how it actually works. Beyond what I've read.
 
chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
Ah, I never paid attention to it but that's what 0+1 is then. I don't understand why you'd need 5+0 or 5+1 though. Belt and suspenders I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top