SATA drive questions + raid questions

If you want raw speed, go RAID 0. If you want Data Integrity and
Reliability, RAID 1.

excuse my newbie atitude to RAID, but isnt RAID0 just as reliable as normal
ata66/100/133? where as raid1 the chances of BOTH drives dying is somewhat
slim, thus improving it's reliability factor

at the end of the day, my pc is for home use only - for myself only, used
primarly for gaming, so valuable data is not stored - data reliability is
not that high on my list of prioritys, where as speed is.

tim

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:07:33 +0000 (UTC), "O |V| 3 G A"
wrote:

If you want raw speed, go RAID 0. If you want Data Integrity and
Reliability, RAID 1.

excuse my newbie atitude to RAID, but isnt RAID0 just as reliable as normal
ata66/100/133? where as raid1 the chances of BOTH drives dying is somewhat
slim, thus improving it's reliability factor

at the end of the day, my pc is for home use only - for myself only, used
primarly for gaming, so valuable data is not stored - data reliability is
not that high on my list of prioritys, where as speed is.

tim


Simplified it is the chance of a failure goes up as the number of
components involved increases, if the chance of each item failing is the
still the same. So if the odds of asingle drive failing in a year is one in
ten, the odds of one of 2 drives failing is two in ten, or 1 in 5. With the
reliability of hard drives, this is not a major risk, but it is riskier
than just a single drive failing.

Doesn't mean not to use RAID 0. Means be aware of the cons as well as the
pros. Also means you will still need a way to backup critical and important
data as all mechanical devices will fail, it is just a matter of when.

JT

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:07:33 +0000 (UTC), "O |V| 3 G A"
wrote:

If you want raw speed, go RAID 0. If you want Data Integrity and
Reliability, RAID 1.

excuse my newbie atitude to RAID, but isnt RAID0 just as reliable as normal
ata66/100/133? where as raid1 the chances of BOTH drives dying is somewhat
slim, thus improving it's reliability factor

RAID 0 has lower reliablity than a single drive, since there are two
dependent drives each with it's own failure rate. Also IF the drives
are contributing to each other's heat retention due to chassis
mounting configuration the failure rate would be further escalated.
Then there's other factors making data salvage more difficult... for
example, possible lack of redundant RAID controller... Do you have a
second duplicate SATA RAID controller in case the first one
(motherboard) were to fail? You can't necessarily assume that a RAID
array created on one controller will work on any other.

at the end of the day, my pc is for home use only - for myself only, used
primarly for gaming, so valuable data is not stored - data reliability is
not that high on my list of prioritys, where as speed is.

Then it may not be very important to you, but are you sure your time
isn't of any value? It can take many hours-days to reproduce
(completely reinstall and tweak) a PC, often that time is worth
*something*.


Dave

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:07:33 +0000 (UTC), "O |V| 3 G A"
wrote:

If you want raw speed, go RAID 0. If you want Data Integrity and
Reliability, RAID 1.

excuse my newbie atitude to RAID, but isnt RAID0 just as reliable as
normal
ata66/100/133? where as raid1 the chances of BOTH drives dying is
somewhat
slim, thus improving it's reliability factor

RAID 0 has lower reliablity than a single drive, since there are two
dependent drives each with it's own failure rate. Also IF the drives
are contributing to each other's heat retention due to chassis
mounting configuration the failure rate would be further escalated.
Then there's other factors making data salvage more difficult... for
example, possible lack of redundant RAID controller... Do you have a
second duplicate SATA RAID controller in case the first one
(motherboard) were to fail? You can't necessarily assume that a RAID
array created on one controller will work on any other.

at the end of the day, my pc is for home use only - for myself only, used
primarly for gaming, so valuable data is not stored - data reliability is
not that high on my list of prioritys, where as speed is.

Then it may not be very important to you, but are you sure your time
isn't of any value? It can take many hours-days to reproduce
(completely reinstall and tweak) a PC, often that time is worth
*something*.


Dave

only cuz of my poxy ISDN 64k line
least it's not long till adsl is enabled in my exhange - nov 5th here i
come!! (i`m a brit btw). will be burning some CD's tonight, cuz if scan get
their ass in gear, my 2x western digital raptor 10,000rpm's will be coming
tomorrow!

tim

I think I was just reading about raid 0,1 setups. wouldn't this be the best
of both worlds?
I am also looking into this only I probably will not be using sata drives
soon. I have 5 ide here, might as well use them.
thanks
"O |V| 3 G A" wrote in message
...
hi,

i`m in the market for a new HDD (my maxtor 40gb just aint big enough) and
i`m fancying making use of the 2x SATA ports on my a7n8x dlx mainboard.

i`m liking western digital's offering of their 10,000 rpm 8mb cache SATA
drive, but being only 36gb, it's just not big enough. is there any
manufacture making a 10k rpm drive around the 80-120gb area?

also, money permitting, i`m thinking about hitting the RAID striping
scene,
and if the drive is too expensive, then i`d add the 2nd drive at a later
date. if i was todo this, i`d be running straight SATA for a while untill
i
can afford the 2nd HDD for RAID. will i be able to add the 2nd drive and
setup a raid config without reinstalling winXP?

thanks
tim draper






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

No, there aren't any 10,000 rpm SATA drives besides the 36 GB WD Raptor.
And if you install just one SATA harddrive now, you'll have to reinstall XP
when you add the 2nd drive for RAID 0.

--
DaveW



"O |V| 3 G A" wrote in message
...
hi,

i`m in the market for a new HDD (my maxtor 40gb just aint big enough) and
i`m fancying making use of the 2x SATA ports on my a7n8x dlx mainboard.

i`m liking western digital's offering of their 10,000 rpm 8mb cache SATA
drive, but being only 36gb, it's just not big enough. is there any
manufacture making a 10k rpm drive around the 80-120gb area?

also, money permitting, i`m thinking about hitting the RAID striping
scene,
and if the drive is too expensive, then i`d add the 2nd drive at a later
date. if i was todo this, i`d be running straight SATA for a while untill
i
can afford the 2nd HDD for RAID. will i be able to add the 2nd drive and
setup a raid config without reinstalling winXP?

thanks
tim draper

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:54:50 GMT, "DaveW" wrote:

No, there aren't any 10,000 rpm SATA drives besides the 36 GB WD Raptor.
And if you install just one SATA harddrive now, you'll have to reinstall XP
when you add the 2nd drive for RAID 0.


There are now 73GB Raptors from WD.

"David MacLeod" wrote in message
...
I think I was just reading about raid 0,1 setups. wouldn't this be the
best
of both worlds?
I am also looking into this only I probably will not be using sata drives
soon. I have 5 ide here, might as well use them.
thanks

Yes, RAID 0+1 is "the best of both worlds" ... only down side is most people
don't have 4 drives lying around to run it on.

For optimal allocation of space those 4 drives should also all be the exact
same size. (though a little variation is not usually a problem with most
RAID controllers)

Basically in RAID 0+1 you have 2 stripe sets (mode 0) one mirroring the
other (mode 1). This has the plusses of increased speed, as well as data
integrity ... only downside is that, like with RAID 1, half of your total
space is lost due to the mirror effect.

But even with RAID 5, which uses 3 drives, (and also provides both speed and
data integrity ... though implementation in ATA is sparse ... it's mostly a
SCSI thing) you still lose some of your total to checksums.

Ahh, such is the cost of data integrity ...


Drumguy