Raid 1. Faster than no raid?
- Thread starter Dotaholic
- Start date
13thmonkey
Titan
- Jan 10, 2006
- 24,790
- 350
- 75,790
raid 1 minimises the risk of data loss but is slower and you only get 1/2 of the total capacity.
raid 0 you get all of the total capacity, its faster, but there is an increased risk of data loss.
raid 0 you get all of the total capacity, its faster, but there is an increased risk of data loss.
darkbooton
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2010
- 89
- 0
- 18,660
RAID 0 is basicially 2 drives "combined" and acting as one.
RAID 1 is two drives. Main drive and drive that is a mirror image of main drive and is updated with every changed made on main drive.
RAID 0+1 same as raid 0 but with mirror drive.
Raid requires same HDD size ie, 1TB plus 1TB and so on
good site with all you could want to know and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
RAID 1 is two drives. Main drive and drive that is a mirror image of main drive and is updated with every changed made on main drive.
RAID 0+1 same as raid 0 but with mirror drive.
Raid requires same HDD size ie, 1TB plus 1TB and so on
good site with all you could want to know and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
So I could have a raid with 2 drives acting as one, and 1 redundancy drive to prevent data loss, (i.e. 2 (256gb) ssd, and 1 (512 gb) redundancy drive, for a total of 512gb of data, while still getting the faster performance. This is raid 5 right? What is the speed increase with Raid 0 or Raid 5? From a single SSD with no raid?
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,035
- 12
- 89,965
^What he said, mostly. RAID-1 mirrors data on a pair of drives. If one dies, you don't lose data. Of course, data loss caused by file corruption (e.g. viruses or accidental deletion) are not prevented by RAID1, so backups should still be done. In RAID1, writes are slower because all the data must be written to both drives. Reads CAN be faster, since there will be times when each drive in the pair can be servicing a different request at the same time. The capacity is that of the smallest of the two drives. If the drives are equal size (the usual arrangement), capacity is equal to one drive.
RAID0 stripes data across multiple drives. Each drive handles less of the data, so reads and writes are both faster, BUT if any drive in the array fails, all data is lost. Total capacity is the size of the smallest drive times the number of drives. If all drives are the same size (the usual arrangement), that means capacity is equal to the sum of all the drives in the array (which can be more than two).
RAID0 also works most reliably with enterprise-class drives that have "TLER," which is Time Limited Error Recovery. If a drive takes too long to respond to a request, the controller (whether hardware or software) could believe the drive has failed, which kills the array. RAID1 is a lot less sensitive to this, since the drives do not have to respond precisely together on all requests like they do in RAID0. I run RAID1 pairs on both of my rigs, in one case using "LP" (same as "green") drives. I would not dream of using such drives in a RAID0, but this RAID1 has be flawless for almost two years now.
RAID0 stripes data across multiple drives. Each drive handles less of the data, so reads and writes are both faster, BUT if any drive in the array fails, all data is lost. Total capacity is the size of the smallest drive times the number of drives. If all drives are the same size (the usual arrangement), that means capacity is equal to the sum of all the drives in the array (which can be more than two).
RAID0 also works most reliably with enterprise-class drives that have "TLER," which is Time Limited Error Recovery. If a drive takes too long to respond to a request, the controller (whether hardware or software) could believe the drive has failed, which kills the array. RAID1 is a lot less sensitive to this, since the drives do not have to respond precisely together on all requests like they do in RAID0. I run RAID1 pairs on both of my rigs, in one case using "LP" (same as "green") drives. I would not dream of using such drives in a RAID0, but this RAID1 has be flawless for almost two years now.
13thmonkey
Titan
- Jan 10, 2006
- 24,790
- 350
- 75,790
thats an unbalanced array, no number for it, 3x256 would give you 512 of storage with 256 for 'safety'.
2x256 mirrored with 2x256 is 1+0 (or 0+1) depending on which way round it is.
2x256 mirrored with 1x512 is nothing.
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,035
- 12
- 89,965
RAID5 uses three or more drives. Data is striped on all three, but parity is added, so if one drive fails, the data can be reconstructed from the other two drives. The capacity of a RAID5 is the size of the smallest drive times (number of drives minus 1). This arrangement is also sensitive to TLER issues. Since parity data must be calculated, it can also be slower than the other types, especially if you are using software RAID rather than hardware RAID. If a drive fails, the array continues to operate in a "degraded" state until the failed drive is replaced and the array is rebuilt.
DarkSable
Judicious
- Sep 27, 2012
- 8,890
- 1
- 34,965
Just throwing out there that it's pointless to RAID 0 an SSD. The point of raid is to have lower latency times, and that's already where the SSD wins, so you're gaining NO benefit for double the chances of failure. It's just silly, especially when SSDs get faster as they get larger. You're WAY better off just buying a single, larger SSD.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram