Question How to set drives as RAID in BIOS?

[Jack4444]

I am trying to setup RAID in my BIOS using Intel RST

I have my BIOS SATA mode set to RAID mode:

Intel rapid storage technology appears in my BIOS and I can access it:

However I don't get the typical "Create RAID volume" option and I'm not sure why. The drives are set as AHCI controller instead of RAID. Not sure if that matters:

I have the newest RST installed in Windows. But once again I don't have the option to Create RAID Volume:

- I've updated my BIOS to the latest version
- I've tried formatting the drives, as well as leaving them unformatted and unpartitioned

Any help in setting up RAID via the BIOS would be very much appreciated.
Thank you

 

[USAFRet]

Question #1 - Why RAID?
Question #2 - What type of RAID array? (probably irrelevant, regarding the answer to #1)

 

[Jack4444]

Question #1 - Why RAID?
Question #2 - What type of RAID array? (probably irrelevant, regarding the answer to #1)

1) My want for RAID is to have some redundancy in case of drive failure
2) I am trying to get the best RAID 1 setup.

I'm also hoping to get some read performance boost from my RAID 1 setup. I have tested software RAID but there have been some limitations:

With Windows Computer Management (Mirroring):

- Performance is good. Usually negligible change in write speeds. Read speeds are always almost 2x with multiple file transfer operations.
- However this doesn't allow for bitlocker encryption so I tried Windows storage spaces. The performance here was much worse. Rarely getting 2x read speed on multiple operations, and single operation drive write and read would be under 1x fairly often.

Now I'm curious how RAID set up via BIOS performs, but it seems like my mobo might not support it even though the setting is in the BIOS

 

[USAFRet]

Besides the RAID 1, what would your actual backup situation be?


Why I'm asking...in the consumer space, RAID (of any type) is rarely beneficial.
It needs to be supplemented by a real backup situation. And if you have that, you don't need the RAID at all.


A RAID 1 can be good for continued uptime, in the event of a physical drive fail.
It does little or nothing for actual data security.

 

[Jack4444]

I have a couple different backups:

- An instant automatic sync to cloud for my most important data. I only have a few TB here so I only choose the most important folders.

- I have a seperate NAS (which is also in a RAID). There I have a shared folder that I connect and overwrite with all of my data. Right now this is a manual process and I only do it every few months

- Then I have an offsite single drive that I connect and add all my data to once or twice a year


Maybe RAID on my main computer is a bit overkill, but I don't mind the extra cost for extra redundancy if I can also get some read performance boost out of it. I haven't had a hard drive fail before but it does seem like a potential way for data loss so I wouldn't mind that extra protection to bridge gaps between my full data backups

 

[USAFRet]

Then good.
You are far beyond what most people who come here asking about RAID are at.

But any 'read performance boost' would be negligible, if any at all.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Maybe RAID on my main computer is a bit overkill, but I don't mind the extra cost for extra redundancy if I can also get some read performance boost out of it. I haven't had a hard drive fail before but it does seem like a potential way for data loss so I wouldn't mind that extra protection to bridge gaps between my full data backups

Considering your system only supports RAID in SATA, unless you're trying really hard to not buy new drives, any NVMe drive is going to outperform RAID1 SATA in every aspect.

If performance is your goal, get an NVMe drive. The only time I'd say RAID is useful is if the system is mission critical in some way and you can't afford any downtime.

 

[USAFRet]

Additionally, which drives are you looking to put into this RAID array?
Can't mix/match sizes. (well, you can, but don't)

 

[Jack4444]

But any 'read performance boost' would be negligible, if any at all.

I'm pretty sure there is potential for big read performance boosts. As I mentioned above, in the case when there's simultaneous operations, I've seen close to 2x read speeds very consistently in Windows software RAID. I've heard that it's possible to get close to 2x performance for single operations with the right hardware, but there's a lot of much mixed info about that. I was hoping to try mobo raid, but since it seems like my mobo doesn't actually support RAID, I may test out a cheap controller and see how that goes.

If performance is your goal, get an NVMe drive. The only time I'd say RAID is useful is if the system is mission critical in some way and you can't afford any downtime.

Yeah performance isn't the main goal, I'm just hoping for some extra data safety and to be able to leave these drives for 10 years without running into any surprises. None of this is really mission critical, but I can get these drives for under $200 so I don't mind using an extra one for the extra reliability.

Additionally, which drives are you looking to put into this RAID array?
Can't mix/match sizes. (well, you can, but don't)

I have two identical 12 TB drives

 

[USAFRet]

If a RAID 1 really made that much of a performance diff, we'd all be doing it.

It may look great in benchmarks. But in real world use? What data are you pulling from this array?

But bottom line...I don't know how to instantiate it on your motherboard.
Possibly a PCIe card to do it.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Yeah performance isn't the main goal, I'm just hoping for some extra data safety and to be able to leave these drives for 10 years without running into any surprises. None of this is really mission critical, but I can get these drives for under $200 so I don't mind using an extra one for the extra reliability.

RAID1 isn't really going to help here. If you buy the drives at the same time, chances are they're going to be from the same lot, so they'll have similar manufacturing defects. Plus you'll be wearing them out at roughly same amount. So by the time one drive goes, the other one is very likely going to start going as well. Then there's the issue of recovering from the RAID. I'm not aware of the process exactly, but from what I can tell from other videos and such about it, RAID recovery isn't as straightforward as replacing the dead drive and away it goes.

Anyway, I probably should've looked into the board more closely. The fact it's a B250 chipset means the motherboard has no RAID anyway. If you really want it, you'll have to get hardware RAID controller and that just adds another point of failure in the chain.

I think everyone's given enough information about this. If you really want to invest resources into having a RAID1 setup because it helps you sleep better at night, I'm not going to stop you.

 

[Jack4444]

If a RAID 1 really made that much of a performance diff, we'd all be doing it.
It may look great in benchmarks. But in real world use? What data are you pulling from this array?

Well it's pretty easy to test and see the performance differences. When there are multiple read operations, each drive gets used for separate operations, and you get almost double the read speed. My benchmarks and my real world tests of simply copying files (both large or small) both showed clear speed increases.

In cases of simultaneous operations, which I admit won't be the norm but are still fairly common for me, I get 500MB/s total throughput when reading. Compared, to 265 MB max read speed on just the single drive. So not exactly double, but fairly close.

The speeds of single read/write and multiple read/write operations were all noticeably higher and more consistent on RAID created via computer management, but it would be nice to encrypt my files using bitlocker which isn't supported in this case.

Storage spaces supports bitlocker but has slightly worse and significantly less consistent performance.

RAID1 isn't really going to help here. If you buy the drives at the same time, chances are they're going to be from the same lot, so they'll have similar manufacturing defects.

Hmm they may be similar, but I don't think they would be the exact same right? If I were to do RAID I'd probably need to expand this storage in a few years and I'd mix and match new and old drives to prevent this issue.


Now with ALL of that in mind, I ended up not going the RAID route. I found that mirroring with FreeFileSync is the better choice for me.

- I can still set up a mirror of my whole drive, I can make it sync instantly or once a day when comp isn't in use
- I can save past versions of files
- Deleted files don't have to be instantly deleted on the mirror (making it a better backup)
- I can mirror files from other drives. I found mirroring and keeping file history of certain directories in my windows boot drive very useful
- This variance should help make the use of the drives a bit more unique preventing simultaneous failures
- Single read/write operation speeds should be quicker with no RAID overhead
- If I really want double the read speed, I can still start different operations from the different drives (One situation I use often is 2 different decryption processes for large files). So I'm still getting the 2x read speed of single drive here

 

[mdd1963]

RAID....? RAID what? RAID 0,1,5,10? and with what drives shown in your BIOS?

What are your RAID goals?



However, I did not see any similar drives to your 250 GB SSD; is this what you are looking to create a RAID with, or something else? (Ideally, you'd have another Samsung 250 GB SSD if your goal is a mirror of some type for boot up resiliency, or RAID 0 for striping, generally a waste of time save for impressive benchmarks...

If you want speed, get NVME!

 

[mdd1963]

Mirroring the boot drive would have to be done within the mainboard's software raid utility, or, with an add-in raid card's software, as WIndows does not really support any RAIDs/mirroring of OS drive within disk mnmgt and certainly not within Storage Spaces. A mainboard's firmware RAID 1 would pretty much only offer resiliency to be able to boot in case of a drive failure, perhaps useful for certain important servers that are powered on each morning, etc... *If some read speeds were realized n quicker Windows boot times when dealing with SSDs, I doubt the improvements would be noticeable.

For end users, it's really waste of an SSD, as the entire single boot drive could be easily imaged for easy recovery purposes (post repair actions such as replacement of boot drive) to almost anywhere....

 

[USAFRet]

For end users, it's really waste of an SSD, as the entire single boot drive could be easily imaged for easy recovery purposes (post repair actions such as replacement of boot drive) to almost anywhere....

Exactly.

All my house systems back up to a folder tree in my NAS.
Full drive Images, and Incremental Images.
I can recover any individual drive, incl the OS drives, in under an hour.

A RAID 1 is only needed if you really really need the continued uptime.
And a RAID 1 still needs a real backup routine.

 

[Jack4444]

RAID....? RAID what? RAID 0,1,5,10? and with what drives shown in your BIOS?

Not sure if my previous messages aren't visible anymore or something, but I've mentioned earlier that I was "trying to get a RAID 1 setup". I also mentioned that this for "two identical 12 TB drives".


In the end I came to the conclusion that my motherboard doesn't actually support RAID via Intel RST even though the RAID option is shown in the Intel RST section of my BIOS.

Also each software RAID option I tested had a drawback that I didn't want to deal with. (Computer Management didn't support bitlocker, storage spaces had worse performance)

So I will copy paste what I said before about not going RAID:

I ended up not going the RAID route. I found that mirroring with FreeFileSync is the better choice for me.

- I can still set up a mirror of my whole drive, I can make it sync instantly or once a day when comp isn't in use (I ended up setting it to wait for 30 secs of no activity and then do the sync, to limit syncing while I'm using the drive)
- I can keep past versions of files (I have set 30 days worth of file history)
- Deleted files aren't instantly deleted on the mirror (making it a better backup)
- I can mirror files from other drives. I found mirroring and keeping file history of certain directories in my windows boot drive very useful
- This variance should help make the use of the drives a bit more unique preventing simultaneous failures
- Single read/write operation speeds should be quicker with no RAID overhead
- If I really want double the read speed, I can still start different operations from the different drives (One situation I use often is 2 different decryption processes for large files). So I'm still getting the 2x read speed of single drive here

Both drives can be encrypted with bitlocker and one other cool benefit I found is that I can fine tune permissions for the mirror drive. I have it set so that the backup utility is the only thing that can create, edit or delete any file or folder on the backup drive. This should be helpful to prevent any accidental deletion or malware from messing up the backup data. I know it's still possible for an admin account to regain access, but it involves a whole lot of extra steps.