Raid 0, Raid 1 or no Raid

[novohammer]

I am looking at a new server with 2x73 Gig SAS Drives and my choice of Raid 0, Raid 1 or no Raid. I am not sure which option is best. Which one is best choice and why?

[TidalWave]

RAID 0 - you will get performance increase but if any of the drives dies, all the data is gone; make sure you have backups.

RAID 1 - you will have data mirrored from drive 1, to drive 2. If one drive dies you will still have your data; make sure you have backups regardless as arrays do fail and you can lose all data anyways.

No RAID - you would have to create nightly backups to the 2nd drive via rsync, or just use the 2nd drive for additional storage since you will still have off-server backups

I would pick #2, and make sure I had off-server backups.

.
..

Even though your new host may be unmanaged (if thats the case) they should've been able to explain and help you with this.
Perhaps you should reconsider the choice on provider.

I can offer SAS drives, in 4 bay hot-swap config with all manner of Xeon CPU's, including the very latest Harpertown with 12MB cache!

alex [removethis@] pacificrack.com

[moses]

Go with RAID-1. It will protect you against the most common hardware failure (a failed drive.)

RAID-0 is higher performance, but you then have twice the chance of failure (if either drive fails, you lose everything).

No raid is kinda like raid 0 without the performance benefit -- chances are, you have something critical on each of the drives, so if either fails you're out of luck.

[bu((aneer]

RAID-5


End of thread

[BV]

RAID-5


End of thread

that's bullshit, i had raid 5 and it still fucked up

i'm back with raid 1 now

[NosMo]

that's bullshit, i had raid 5 and it still fucked up

i'm back with raid 1 now

raid 5 is good, raid 50 is better just cost a arm and a leg.


NosMo

[tony286]

I read a article in one of the video mags on render performance.They added more ram ,did raids, upgraded the cpu. They found the only one that really gave a performance boost worth noting was upgrading the cpu.

[TidalWave]

of course the HDD's wouldn't have much to do with video rendering. that requires high CPU, not HDD's.
what you need is highly dependent on what you want to do with the machine

[BV]

raid 5 is good, raid 50 is better just cost a arm and a leg.


NosMo

yes i know, that's why i decided to go with Raid5, however it failed me and I had all sorts of problems with that particular server in comparison to two other servers i had at the same time, finally it died and took 2 drives with it.

I had week old backups so i was not too bad off, still a pain in the ass though

[pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE]

RAID-5


End of thread

agree


I run Raid 5 across a 5 server cent os cluster

I sleep very well at night

[drjones]

I would forgo using raid altogether unless your applications are going to have significant I/O bottlenecks, where the increased performance is a necessity.

Even when using RAID 1 or 5, its important to realize, it doesnt substitute for making regular backups. Its almost always a huge pain in the ass to restore a raid setup when a disk fails.

[Jim_Gunn]

FYI, I have a half dozen computer workstations that are heavily used for high definition video editing and video encoding, and I only use external firewire drives (and one USB drive), no RAID setups. Works for me.

[Steve Awesome]

RAID 1. Every quarter I'll get my backup drives out of the safety deposit box and run a dupe of everything. I like storing a copy off-site regardless of configuration.

[Why]

what about RAID6? RAID 5+1. its what we use, im interested to hear comments because i see so many RAID5 fans.

http://www.storagereview.com/guide20...vels/comp.html

[s9ann0]

why not get big SATA drives (400gb) in RAID 1 then you have backup and its cheap