![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm looking at installing a SATA RAID 5 system in my home PC to provide a
means of data recovery in case of hard disk failure (I'm thinking this will be cheaper in the long run than installing a tape drive for a Tb of data). When the 400Gb drives are released I'll be looking at getting 4 for the array. Is there any way of determining from the manyfacturer specs if the cards are software or hardware based for the parity calculations. A review on Toms hardware for the RocketRAID 1820 said that it was software based. Another article elsewhere indicated that if the card had an XOR processor then the parity calculations were hardware based and there is a RocketRAID 1820A with an XOR processor. I don't know how valid that indication about the XOR processor was. I'm looking at hardware based RAID because I use Norton Ghost to back up my system partition (which I plan to have of the RAID 5 volume) and Ghost uses MS DOS which I don't think a software system would support. Thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:30:12 +1030, "Gilgamesh"
wrote: I'm looking at installing a SATA RAID 5 system in my home PC to provide a means of data recovery in case of hard disk failure (I'm thinking this will be cheaper in the long run than installing a tape drive for a Tb of data). When the 400Gb drives are released I'll be looking at getting 4 for the array. RAID protection is very different than backup protection. RAID increases availability/uptime. You need regular offline/offsite backups regardless. If you have that much important data, you're not going to be able to get away from spending a few thousand USD to back it up properly regardless of method. Is there any way of determining from the manyfacturer specs if the cards are software or hardware based for the parity calculations. A review on Toms hardware for the RocketRAID 1820 said that it was software based. Another article elsewhere indicated that if the card had an XOR processor then the parity calculations were hardware based and there is a RocketRAID 1820A with an XOR processor. I don't know how valid that indication about the XOR processor was. It doesn't really matter. On the low end you are going to encounter unnecessary headaches regardless of the exact role of the driver. Proper implementation of RAID 5 is somewhat of an engineering nightmare & I would stay away from all parity raid levels on the "personal storage" level anyway. I'm looking at hardware based RAID because I use Norton Ghost to back up my system partition (which I plan to have of the RAID 5 volume) and Ghost uses MS DOS which I don't think a software system would support. All you should need is the correct msdos driver to get it to work. Depending on the card, you may need this even with a full firmware enterprise controller. Full native MSdos support is spotty across all raid cards. Fully firmware raid does not necessarily protect you from issues with dos disk utility support. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gilgamesh" wrote in message ... I'm looking at installing a SATA RAID 5 system in my home PC to provide a means of data recovery in case of hard disk failure (I'm thinking this will be cheaper in the long run than installing a tape drive for a Tb of data). When the 400Gb drives are released I'll be looking at getting 4 for the array. Is there any way of determining from the manyfacturer specs if the cards are software or hardware based for the parity calculations. A review on Toms hardware for the RocketRAID 1820 said that it was software based. Another article elsewhere indicated that if the card had an XOR processor then the parity calculations were hardware based and there is a RocketRAID 1820A with an XOR processor. I don't know how valid that indication about the XOR processor was. I'm looking at hardware based RAID because I use Norton Ghost to back up my system partition (which I plan to have of the RAID 5 volume) and Ghost uses MS DOS which I don't think a software system would support. Thanks RAID 5 is a high end solution - to get a good RAID 5 hardware card, you'll spend more than another drive will cost, anyways. Better to look at RAID 1 or 0+1 - it's faster because very little calculation is required; a good card can be had for as little as $15. Rebuilding the array after a drive fails will be much faster, too. I think another poster already mentioned, though - it's not a backup. In your shoes, I'd buy a couple of external HDD cases, and put your new 400GB drives into them - then ghost or backup your data onto them, and keep them in a safe place off site. Where would your terabyte of data be if, God forbid, you had a house fire? Or, some trojan on your computer was serving kiddie porn, and the FBI confiscated your computer? Or some kid managed to download a virus, and answered "yes" to "format all"? Or, for that matter, if Windows does something unexpected (THAT never happens, right?) and you can't get to your data? You'd be HOSED. Good Luck! ECM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:11:35 -0800, "ECM"
wrote: RAID 5 is a high end solution - to get a good RAID 5 hardware card, you'll spend more than another drive will cost, anyways. Better to look at RAID 1 or 0+1 1+0 is generally better than 0+1 from a fault recoverability standpoint. It is very fast so 0+1 is advisable in fewer circumstances. - it's faster because very little calculation is required; No parity calculation is done, actually. a good card can be had for as little as $15. Rebuilding the array after a drive fails will be much faster, too. Like what? I'd be interested to know. Considering the state of enterprise controllers I'm quite fearful of the $15 category. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Curious George wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:11:35 -0800, "ECM" wrote: RAID 5 is a high end solution - to get a good RAID 5 hardware card, you'll spend more than another drive will cost, anyways. Better to look at RAID 1 or 0+1 1+0 is generally better than 0+1 from a fault recoverability standpoint. It is very fast so 0+1 is advisable in fewer circumstances. - it's faster because very little calculation is required; No parity calculation is done, actually. a good card can be had for as little as $15. Rebuilding the array after a drive fails will be much faster, too. Like what? I'd be interested to know. Considering the state of enterprise controllers I'm quite fearful of the $15 category. I wasn't really speaking of enterprise level equipment - the OP was asking about home use, I believe. And yes, you're right - 1+0 is faster to recover, especially in large arrays. I'm not sure whether the lower end cards support 1+0, however - most advertise 0+1. The GigaRAID controller built in to Gigabyte's MB's, for instance, doesn't give you the option of 1+0 - it sets up the RAID 0 arrays and then mirrors one with the other; there are no other options. Either way, however, would be preferable to a RAID 5 solution (especially a cheap one). And I believe both of us mentioned that RAID in general is not a substitute for backups..... I always remind myself that there's at least three parts of any RAID array that can fail - two drives and a controller. ECM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message Curious George
wrote: And yes, you're right - 1+0 is faster to recover, especially in large arrays. It's not that it restores faster, it's that it can sustain a greater number of failures. When you loose a drive in a 0+1 the array becomes essentially a raid 0 striped set. With RAID 1+0 you can loose a maximum of half your drives and still operate (provided you are lucky and the 'right' ones fail). Because they both use striped & mirrored data they _should_ restore at the same/similar rate. But it doesn't really matter so much as running degraded/recovery mode does not affect performance to the extent the parity levels can. You should take this into account when you're buying drives too. Buy half your drives from one batch, and half from another batch (if you have that control -- Staying with the same model if you can, of course. If there is a physical defect which affects an entire batch, it won't take down your entire array, it will probably take down the affected batch only and you can replace the drives. -- I've given up on sigs. I just couldn't think of anything clever to say. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:08:28 GMT, Curious George wrote:
And yes, you're right - 1+0 is faster to recover, especially in large arrays. It's not that it restores faster, it's that it can sustain a greater number of failures. When you loose a drive in a 0+1 the array becomes essentially a raid 0 striped set. With RAID 1+0 you can loose a maximum of half your drives and still operate (provided you are lucky and the 'right' ones fail). Sorry, I realize that is a bit of an overstatement. That can be true But it is actually more complicated than that. The truth is that there is a marked increase in the likelihood that a second disk failure/multiple failures will bring down a 0+1 array. Both 0+1 & 1+0 are supposed to be able to sustain more than one failure in certain circumstances. Also when a failed disk is replaced 1+0 only has to re-mirror one drive but 0+1 has to re-mirror the entire failed set. RAID 1+0 is supposed to recover much faster but in reality, restore speed is also determined by the priority that process is assigned as well as other peculiarities of the controller, array, etc.. I'm not sure that this is much of a reason to choose one level over another. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message Curious George
wrote: Sorry, I realize that is a bit of an overstatement. That can be true But it is actually more complicated than that. The truth is that there is a marked increase in the likelihood that a second disk failure/multiple failures will bring down a 0+1 array. Both 0+1 & 1+0 are supposed to be able to sustain more than one failure in certain circumstances. If the right drives fail either type can handle up to 50% of the drives failing simultaneously. The difference is that when one drive has failed and you're considering which remaining drives can fail without taking down the entire array, a 1+0 array has more choices of drives which can die while still continuing to run. -- I've given up on sigs. I just couldn't think of anything clever to say. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:31:13 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote: You should take this into account when you're buying drives too. Buy half your drives from one batch, and half from another batch (if you have that control -- Staying with the same model if you can, of course. This may be viable. One potential issue is when you buy in a single batch you are more likely to get the same model and firmware revisions. Some firmware may have raid issues or raid related conflicts with differing levels. With ata you generally can't upgrade that. If there is a physical defect which affects an entire batch, it won't take down your entire array, it will probably take down the affected batch only and you can replace the drives. Interesting. In many cases though you can run into problem with multiple failures that a 50/50 split can't save you from. Another viable option is thorough testing before array creation and having spares on-site. You can use the spare(s) to create a disk rotation schedule to combat the problem of many drives dying at a similar time down the line because they are identical age with identical usage. You also don't have to loose any sleep while you wait for the warranty replacements and can survive additional failure(s). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
to raid or not to raid that is the question | peppythegimp | General | 2 | September 11th 04 08:02 PM |
Suggestions on TRUE Hardware RAID Motherboard -- EIDE or Serial ATA | Ringo Langly | General | 3 | August 13th 04 12:15 AM |
RAID 5 = Disk Usage Question | TJ | General | 2 | June 2nd 04 11:59 PM |
What are the advantages of RAID setup? | Rich | General | 5 | February 23rd 04 08:34 PM |
help. ga-7vrxp raid trouble, compatability and warning | todd elliott | General | 0 | July 17th 03 06:50 PM |