RAID 0 questions - failure factor?

vbimport

#1

Hello!

I am planning on setting up a RAID 0 on 2x WD 2500AAKS. I also have one WD 6400 AAKS that I wanna hook up as a regular SATA disk. This way I’ll manually backup significant data. Since I mainly do audio composition that won’t be much of a problem. I am into it just for speed really.

Now I was googling a bit and I found one participant on a forum that claimed that RAID 0 setting actually increases the risk of failure. Now I know what I can expect from a RAID 0 failure but can that be true? I always thought that RAID 0 reliability is manufacturing quality dependent. Meaning that if two identical disks survive as a normal SATA disks, they would also survive in RAID 0 array. Right?


#2

Raid 0 is only for performance , so its not a true raid config , if you lose 1 drive all your data is lost on both drives , Raid 1 however , if you lose 1 drive you still recover your data . , so if your looking for increased performance use raid 0 , if your looking a for a redundancy use raid 1 , also remember that when using raid 1 its the equivalent of 1 drive , so 2 500 GB drives use in a raid 1 would only be 500 GB in windows , 2 500 GB drives in raid 0 will be seen as 1 TB drive . , hope that helps , and always remember that any type of raid is not back up data , always back up your data on another seperate drive .


#3

Well yes, I know everything in theory. I also understand how RAID works. I was just asking whether RAID 0 increases mechanical disk failure or not? I personally believe that’s BS. Otherwise I know what will happen if any of these two would eventually give up.

I will have a seperate drive, bigger than these two together. I have everything in mind.

Here’s the link to that thread:


#4

I had a RAID 0 setup a couple of years ago. One drive failed and i lost ALL data. I will never use RAID 0 again.

By using RAID 0 you double the risk of failure. Not because using RAID 0 (as far as i know) increases the likelihood of a drive failing but, simply because your data is spread across two devices. Double the amount of devices then, you double the chance of failure.


#5

Okay. So nothing on that case. That’s fine with me.

I have always kept personal stuff on reliable disk. Eventually you don’t need speed for storing your documents, small gadgy applications, drivers, installations, games and such. I also keep my music which I cherish the most backed up.

I am into speed because I need a performance gain when openning a 20 GB audio project. If I play games I always keep my saved data backed up. You never know what’s gonna happen.

I have a sophisticated data organisation that I have established a decade ago when my third computer crashed for the first time. From then on I always kept old HDD for archiving and such.

I also back up my OS data, so if one disk fails I’ll get another one, re-do the array setup and restore the backup.


#6

I think that poster was saying that statistically your chances of failure go up with your data striped across two (or more) separate drives.

With spinning disc technology failure will occur eventually.
If my data was srtiped across 10 drives, the odds are higher that failure will occur sooner than if all my data was on one drive.

Click on each RAID level (pro/con):
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html


#7

[QUOTE=Sodom;2096395]Well yes, I know everything in theory. I also understand how RAID works. I was just asking whether RAID 0 increases mechanical disk failure or not? I personally believe that’s BS. Otherwise I know what will happen if any of these two would eventually give up.

I will have a seperate drive, bigger than these two together. I have everything in mind.

Here’s the link to that thread:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/244711-14-raid-partition[/QUOTE]

RAID-0 does NOT increase the chances of failure, over what you would expect with any 2 drives. Not one scintilla of difference. The alleged increase in failure is due to the simple fact that one of 2 drives is more likely to fail than any single drive. It doesn’t matter that type drive or array you use, if you’re not adequately backed up, you will certainly lose your data eventually.

That said, it’s also true that most RAID array failures are due to the controller, not the drives. The drives are fine, but the controller drops the array for whatever reason. This type failure is usually recoverable in the right hands.

I also add that using these particular drives in RAID-0 will offer very little in the way of improved performance, and will even be a bit slower in some respects. It will improve sustained transfer rates, which is rarely noticeable. In order to take advantage of the improved transfer rate, the array needs to be used in tandem with a drive or array that’s as fast or faster. IOW, it’s not faster unless it has someplace to write to or read from at that speed. It ALL depends on your use of the hardware.

If you can provide more info about your configuration and how you expect to gain speed, that would help. More often than not, you will gain more from having 2 separate physical drives, than from having 2 drives in RAID-0.

If you really want the max speed from a HDD, there’s still no other option than a WD Raptor or VelociRaptor.

FWIW, I’ve had more than one Raptor RAID-0 array running 24/7 for some years with no problems. I won’t use anything other than Raptors except for storage.


#8

How woudn’t it as you will loose the contents over two drives instead of just one
Still, both Anandtech and Storagereview has articles that shows pretty much no improvement at all when using RAID 0 since it doesnt improve access time…
//Danne


#9

I have a raid 0 array in my old Pentium 4 system. It worked out great for me. win bench showed it around 142MB/sec - and I built this nearly 5 years ago…

If you have a current Intel based motherboard, the software will allow you to mix and match raid types on a single pair of drives.

So you could get the best of both worlds - with part of the storage being a mirror (safety) and another part being striped (Performance)

in this way, with just 2 drives, you could keep your OS and applications mirrored, and keep your 20Gig audio file on the stripe set (raid 0) for performance.

There are lots of ways to configure the raid stuff these days.
bottom line is - yes raid will make your reads/writes faster, and for what you are doing that should help out.

Like others have said, I’ve always kept backups (in my case to external drives, to remove the likelihood that a virus could corrupt the backup)


#10

RAID if great if you have a server or if you like to run benchmarks, but real world for the normal computer user the gains aren’t there, and its been proven over and over. Its the marketing hype that gets people to use two drives to do the same thing. NCQ, another server function that got hyped up, mean while you loose some ~%5 performance with it on.


#11

Here’s the deal:

I have managed to set up RAID 0 array. It went fine but one of the disks broke in a matter of 10 hours. I got new one, this time I have two of the same firmware.
Now after using RAID 0 I can point out some conclusions:

Cons:

  • loading of an operating system is practically the same speed as before
  • your controller and drivers need to work 100 % in order to be sure about the data you’re putting there
  • no gain for gamers

Pros:

  • the biggest gain is when windows is loading your settings. I couldn’t imagine how fast background processes and tasks in the taskbar can be loaded
  • opening huge amounts of data is time saving
  • installations are fast. I mean FAST!
  • windows installation took only … 12 minutes (from booting from CD to using it for the first time) - I actually spent more time arranging the array and preparing drivers … and my poor old plextor premium was bouncing since it couldn’t not compete with RAID

And one funny thing that I noticed - you don’t have gains everywhere. As someone pointed out, there’s no much gain when disks have to do read and write at the same time. But when I installed my graphics cards and chipset drivers the dialogs that pop up showing you which files are being copied to which destination (usually to windows\system32) it just didn’t have the time to show it. The frame was visible for a fraction of second and then all of it vanished. After three of four seconds it asked me if I want to reboot.
Silly thing this RAID. :slight_smile:

I feel the absolute gain. I mainly do audio and seed torrents a bit. I also have 100 mbps fiber optics broadband internet and by the time all of the seeders hook up, my disks become overloaded. Well, not anymore, thanks to RAID 0. :slight_smile:


#12

It takes me only 2.5 seconds to run e.g. Photoshop on first start. Every additional restart of merely 1s. :slight_smile: I love RAID!


#13

You mentioned you do audio?
If this is multitrack audio recording and playback, you will soon start to hate RAID, as latency causes problems. :slight_smile:
Good luck anyway.


#14

Most of of you (& folk in general).
Are talking about RAID via software.
If you really wanted to explore RAID configurations, then the hardware route is the only option.
Most user’s RAID failure’s are in fact down to software.
I have used h/w , s/w & good old non raid setups.
If you choose wisely with your SATA HDD’s, then gains from s/w raiding are minimal at best.
Forget benchtesting.
I am talking about real world computing.
If you really need raid, go h/w… go true SCSI.


#15

[QUOTE=soulsurvivor;2099619]Most of of you (& folk in general).
Are talking about RAID via software.
If you really wanted to explore RAID configurations, [B]then the hardware route is the only option.[/B]
Most user’s RAID failure’s are in fact down to software.
I have used h/w , s/w & good old non raid setups.
If you choose wisely with your SATA HDD’s, then gains from s/w raiding are minimal at best.
Forget benchtesting.
I am talking about real world computing.
[B]If you really need raid, go h/w… go true SCSI.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, that is the way.
SCSI, FastSCSI, U/W-SCSI, or SAS.