Your thoughts on RAID...

[Noriaki]

RAID0 and RAID1 absolutely do not - I repeat do not - read the same way, both speed up reads somewhat, but they do not work in the same way.



<< raid 5 blows (how do you spell 3-5 mb/s)? >>



How do you figure that? Do even know what RAID5 does?

A RAID5 array of 5 disks has nearly the performance of a 4way RAID0 and you have to lose 2 of the disks to lose the set.

 

[Hardware]

Raid5 blows its slow and cheap only usable for storage
for any reald raid there is nothing else as raid 1 or raid 0+1

 

[Windogg]

The facts you have are for castrated solutions like the FastTrak. The threat topic is on RAID in general. When I talk RAID I mean real redundant solutions. RAID0 is NOT RAID. There is no redundancy and no performance gain in real world use. Wher I work we do see gains in performance with RAID1 drives because we run intranet servers. We would run RAID0 but we need the data protection. I misworded when I said &quot;same way&quot;. It should come out meaning they can pull data from both drives.

I guess I am not fortunate enough to have used half hearted solutions like the FastTrak. I deal with are real heavy duty RAID solutions based on the Intel i960 (Adaptec, Mylex, HP). All workstations have had their RAID0 setups dropped in favor of a single fast SCSI drive because no one notice any increase in perfomance. I listed what I have because that is what the original thread topic asked no beacause I wanted &quot;show off&quot; what I have like some people in their sigs. I know for a fact that there are dozens of people here that administer far more than me so I have no reason to impress anyone.

I guess we are talking two diffrent things here. IDE RAID vs. SCSI RAID. You can soar with eagles or scratch with the chickens. Work with real redundant SCSI solutions and your story will change.

I did not start the attack but if you wish to continue I will. Until then, I will let the children play with their toys.

Windogg

 

[utopia]

You guys are forgeting about RAID 3, which acts as RAID 0, and has a 3'rd drive for backup

 

[Windogg]

Heh heh, this is fun. Anyone for AMD vs. Intel or nVidia vs. 3DFX?

Windogg

 

[Windogg]

RAID 3 is another possibility. The number &quot;3&quot; is not an indication of how many drives you can have. What happens in RAID 3 is data is spread across several drives and a parity drive hold data for use in recovery from drive failure.

Windogg

 

[AdamK47]

If your giving me that option, then I'd rather scratch with the chickens and play with my toys.

 

[Noriaki]

Oh RAID3 is the parity drive setup?

Oh ok, I thought that was RAID5.

 

[Windogg]

RAID5 is also parity but it spreads the parity bits across all the drives. The big danger in RAID3 is when the parity drive dies. RAID 5 eliminates that possibility. There is a penalty speed penalty because of the time needed to calculate the parity bit.

It gets even more confusing when you start combining number like RAID10 (AKA RAID 0+1) or RAID50

Windogg

 

[Windogg]

AdamK47 - 3DS: It was fun. I salute you and I'm ready to meet you for the next one. AMD vs. Intel at 10 paces?

Windogg

 

[Volitive]

This is hilarious. I love seeing these type's of battles - keep em up! (c:

Windogg :

I guess I am not fortunate enough to have used half hearted solutions like the FastTrak. I deal with are real heavy duty RAID solutions based on the Intel i960 (Adaptec, Mylex, HP).

Promise offers an i960 based IDE RAID solution. Click here.
This, apparrently will be just as fast as most of the SCSI solutions out there. It runs 6 independant channels, which means each disk will have it's own IDE bus. No need for load balancing on a single channel, because you don't have to worry about a master/slave configuration. The master/slave dillemma is what Promise and Highpoint are refering to when you do load balancing. As long as you keep the drives on seperate IDE channels, things will run at maximum performance.

I guess we are talking two diffrent things here. IDE RAID vs. SCSI RAID. You can soar with eagles or scratch with the chickens. Work with real redundant SCSI solutions and your story will change.

There are SOME SCSI RAID solutions that are host CPU dependant, just like most IDE-RAID. This is why I hate hardware sometimes. It can be soo misleading to people, because there are so many choices. IDE caching and non-caching RAID, IDE host RAID, software RAID, SCSI RAID, SCSI cacheless RAID. Ugh. (c:

To everyone else:

RAID is only as good as the brand who makes it. One implementation of RAID1 will be faster than someone else's implementation of RAID1. That's how it works. RAID is not a set standard, just a description of how to do things. Try hooking up some disks from one RAID array onto another, and you'll wish you were in hell.

RAID 0 is a misnomer, in case your all wondering. It was just included in the white paper for other solutions, namely RAID 10, which is the FASTEST RAID possible.

Thought I'd come in and clarify. You have very valid points, Windogg.

Oh, and by the way, when RAID comes to the desktop, most people aren't interested in redundancy - like
where you and I work are interested in. At home, I'm just interested in performance, and a RAID0 stripe
provides that when your dealing with the right situation. RAID0 is for working with large files, video
and audio, etc.. Games will see a little bit of a bonus. Boot times actually would increase, if the
data is optimized so that the boot sequence order is correlated to the file order on the disks - it would
act as one big file.

RAID 0 will not speed up file access times - this is where SCSI usually wins. SCSI disks, on average have faster seek times. Other than that, a RAID0 configuration will speed LOAD and work times considerably.

Anyhow... (c:

Cheers,
Volitve

 

[Pariah]

&quot;The big danger in RAID3 is when the parity drive dies.&quot;

That isn't true at all. Losing the parity drive won't do anything, you still have all your data on the other drives. All you have to do is replace the parity drive and it can be rebuilt from the rest of the array. If you lose the parity drive and then another one, then you have a problem.

&quot;RAID 5 eliminates that possibility. There is a penalty speed penalty because of the time needed to calculate the parity bit&quot;

This isn't true either. RAID5 is faster than RAID3 in writes because the parity writes are spread across multiple drives, while in RAID3, one drive has to handle all the parity writes. RAID5 will be a bit slower than RAID3 in reads because parity data has to be skipped on every drive, while there is no parity data to skip in RAID3.

RAID 10 is very simple actually. All it is is RAID 0 with a mirror drive for every drive in the RAID 0 array.