who uses raid?

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.

repeat after me

Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup

LOL. Trust me, I know. I've had a RAID 5 array go down on me. The backup files that I have on my RAID 5 array are of other machines and volumes. Stuff that I can not afford to lose is backed up other places, including USB thumb drives, DVD, external hd (WD Passport), and other single hds that I have. I could see how my first post deserved your reply, but not the one you quoted.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage

Just a correction

I disagree. RAID 5 performance is on par with my RAID 0 array on my controller in benchmarks.

Benchmarked using HD T une 2.53:

boot -- 74gb Raptor on motherboard (P5N32-E SLI Plus)

games -- 2x150gb Raptors (RAID 0) on Areca ARC-1220

storage -- 4x400gb WD RE2 (RAID 5) on Areca ARC-1220

Traditionally, RAID 5 has slower writes, but faster reads then a single disk

If you are using a decent (read: hardware) controller, the performance increases with the number of disks. If you are using software / integrated controllers, it's the exact opposite--it decreases with more disks.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.

repeat after me

Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup

LOL. Trust me, I know. I've had a RAID 5 array go down on me. The backup files that I have on my RAID 5 array are of other machines and volumes. Stuff that I can not afford to lose is backed up other places, including USB thumb drives, DVD, external hd (WD Passport), and other single hds that I have. I could see how my first post deserved your reply, but not the one you quoted.

it was more for others then for you

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In a nut Shell

Raid 0 = Faster but one drive kills all data if it fails
Raid 1 = Still alive if one drive fails, but is NOT a backup, as it still loses your data if you get a virus/accidentally delete it
Raid 5 = Slower performance, fault tolerance but you lose some storage

Just a correction

I disagree. RAID 5 performance is on par with my RAID 0 array on my controller in benchmarks.

Benchmarked using HD T une 2.53:

boot -- 74gb Raptor on motherboard (P5N32-E SLI Plus)

games -- 2x150gb Raptors (RAID 0) on Areca ARC-1220

storage -- 4x400gb WD RE2 (RAID 5) on Areca ARC-1220

Traditionally, RAID 5 has slower writes, but faster reads then a single disk

If you are using a decent (read: hardware) controller, the performance increases with the number of disks. If you are using software / integrated controllers, it's the exact opposite--it decreases with more disks.

It haven't kept up, bu I know our older Compaq's (with h/w raid) were slower in 3 drive raid 5 then with a single drive. Slower for writes, due to parity calculations and determining what drive to write to. Reads are faster, as you have 3 heads/drives to read from, and not calculations to perform.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
I guess I forgot to mention that I have an external hd that important stuff gets backed up to, and very important stuff (docs) are backed up on DVD, external hd, the laptop, & thumb drive. I have had even a RAID 5 array die on me, and the DVD backups I had were all corrupt. Backup your arrays (even RAID 5), and don't use DVD media as a primary backup.

repeat after me

Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup

LOL. Trust me, I know. I've had a RAID 5 array go down on me. The backup files that I have on my RAID 5 array are of other machines and volumes. Stuff that I can not afford to lose is backed up other places, including USB thumb drives, DVD, external hd (WD Passport), and other single hds that I have. I could see how my first post deserved your reply, but not the one you quoted.

it was more for others then for you

kk. Just checking.

 

[Blain]

This isn't a thread, it's a chat room.