How reliable is RAID ARRAY 5? - GoFuckYourself.com

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 04:50 PM

?How reliable is RAID ARRAY 5?

thanks

SuckOnThis · 06-08-2005, 04:52 PM

If you're talking in terms of data loss in case a drive goes not very. I had a drive go down with RAID 5 and lost everything.

synapse · 06-08-2005, 04:54 PM

by definition it's *the* most reliable disk config

slower then say RAID 0 / 1 but solid.

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 04:56 PM

Then what is it good for???

How did you lose all your data with RAID?

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 04:57 PM

Raid is one of the safest.. if you lose one drive, you will continue running, if the software is set up correct... A lot of breakdowns happend when unskilled personals try to bring the raid online again.

Of you have more than 8 raidsets, its also the fastest kombination of disks. I have 13 seperate workstations with its own 2mb/s throughput to the 1.4 TB SAN - even if one disk is down - that is only possible with raid5.

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 04:57 PM

Raid 0... yes.... but other RAIDS... arent they reliable?

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

If you're talking in terms of data loss in case a drive goes not very. I had a drive go down with RAID 5 and lost everything.

then you need to replace your tech guys.... The raid info is written to the disk, so if only one disk broke down, you would be REALLY incompetent if you could not rebuild a Raid5

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leg4

Raid 0... yes.... but other RAIDS... arent they reliable?

I WAS talking about raid5...
and yes they are. its only bad personel that can fuck it up

Brad Mitchell · 06-08-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk

then you need to replace your tech guys.... The raid info is written to the disk, so if only one disk broke down, you would be REALLY incompetent if you could not rebuild a Raid5

As a host myself, I would say anything is possible. As a host, I would say a RAID 5 is a great choice for the best mixture of price and reliability. Other things to consider are what type of drives are being used and what type of RAID controller - they're not all created equal. No hardware solution is infalliable, that's why I always recommend a full backup - even of large RAID volumes. If you want some recommendations on hardware simply email me or call me during the day.

Cheers,

Brad

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 05:06 PM

I made a huge mistake.. I got my first RAID system a few months ago... not knowing much about RAIDS.... I prebuilt with DELL online and got a RAID 0 (I didn't know any better...)

2.5 months later.... It shuts down and will not reboot....

Maxtor Calypso drives... are these crappy Maxtors?

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

As a host myself, I would say anything is possible. As a host, I would say a RAID 5 is a great choice for the best mixture of price and reliability. Other things to consider are what type of drives are being used and what type of RAID controller - they're not all created equal. No hardware solution is infalliable, that's why I always recommend a full backup - even of large RAID volumes. If you want some recommendations on hardware simply email me or call me during the day.

Cheers,

Brad

agree on the backup 100%... raid wont safe you from flooding or explosions.
We run a HP ETLA - cost us 1,5mill but if our customer breakdown, there will be no national TV in denmark.

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leg4

I made a huge mistake.. I got my first RAID system a few months ago... not knowing much about RAIDS.... I prebuilt with DELL online and got a RAID 0 (I didn't know any better...)

2.5 months later.... It shuts down and will not reboot....

Maxtor Calypso drives... are these crappy Maxtors?

never ever what so ever, put your OS on a Raid 0.. you have 75% higher chance of breakdown...

If you want something fast, then buy 4 disks:
Make one raid1 set out of disk 1 and 2 - call it A
Make one raid1 set out of disk 3 and 4 - call it B

Connect 1 and 3 to one channel on the raidcontroller
connect 2 and 4 to the other channel

Make a raid 0 (stripe) out of set A and B - that way you have SUPER speed and safety.. 2 disks have to die before you loos data that way . and it got the speed of a raid0

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 05:23 PM

I can't believe those fucking hahahahaS at Dell sold me a big server with my system (C) drive on RAID 0--- fucking hahahaha heads

jimmyf · 06-08-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk

I WAS talking about raid5...
and yes they are. its only bad personel that can fuck it up

my understanding is that raid5 is the best, someone else post
raid5 was NO good.

but what do I know, started in computers before XT days.

SuckOnThis · 06-08-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk

then you need to replace your tech guys.... The raid info is written to the disk, so if only one disk broke down, you would be REALLY incompetent if you could not rebuild a Raid5

Yep, you are correct, and I replaced them when it happened 3 years ago, and I should have sued the hell out of them. The hosting company sold me on the RAID 5, purchased the server from them, and when the disk failed they replaced it without my permission or even telling me it went down. All I knew was I get a phone call from them telling me all my data was lost. I had a backup that was about 30 days old because they assured me with RAID 5 there wouldnt be a data loss if a disk failed. So I'm sure it was their incompetence. Then the fuckers had the nerve to try to charge me $2000 for tech support. Cost me over $10,000 because of the downtime. Live and learn.

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leg4

I can't believe those fucking hahahahaS at Dell sold me a big server with my system (C) drive on RAID 0--- fucking hahahaha heads

Are people in the US buying preconfigured windows server? WTF? servers need to be customiced to the usrs needs... MTF/clustersize/log or else you COULD lose 50% preformance

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 05:31 PM

Actually, it wasn't a server.... it was an editing system.... My bad dawg!

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Yep, you are correct, and I replaced them when it happened 3 years ago, and I should have sued the hell out of them. The hosting company sold me on the RAID 5, purchased the server from them, and when the disk failed they replaced it without my permission or even telling me it went down. All I knew was I get a phone call from them telling me all my data was lost. I had a backup that was about 30 days old because they assured me with RAID 5 there wouldnt be a data loss if a disk failed. So I'm sure it was their incompetence. Then the fuckers had the nerve to try to charge me $2000 for tech support. Cost me over $10,000 because of the downtime. Live and learn.

woooww !!!

On each of our lage customers, we write up an ensurance for dataloss - depending on what equipment they have, and what level of access the users and local admin have. Next time you hire external help - ask for the same
that would be my free advice to you

toddler · 06-08-2005, 05:54 PM

RAID 5 is fine if you know what you are doing, or your tech folks do. RAID 0 is just slapping the drives together to make one logical LUN to the OS, which is worthless for business continuity.

The real question is: what are the pertinent differences between RAID 0+1 and 1+0. No google allowed

Brad Mitchell · 06-08-2005, 06:23 PM

ebus - what you were saying about doing two raid ones and joining those together with a zero, that's a raid 10. Very cool, just more expensive because you need twice the drives for capacity.

RAID 0 definitely has it's place. In load balanced environments, like we have for some of our clients, it might look something like 3 to 5 identical servers each running on a RAID 0. If one of the servers RAID fails it's not a big deal, the others pick up the load until a replacement can be put online. That's a sweet setup for speed. But, it would still be incomplete without a backup.

RAID 5 instability doesn't have to have anything to do with the technicians supporting it. Even with great techs, two drives can fail at once or a controller can equally screw up and cause data loss or complete failure. A better than average RAID 5 would have an additional hot-spare in the configuration so that when a problem is encountered time is less of the essence.

RAID 1 is practical for medium and low volume servers if it's configured properly. This has two drives mirroring. What you lose is some performance... also, it's not really a backup. If data on a drive gets corrupted then that just gets replicated to the other drive. So, the lesson is
always the same - have a backup.

My advice is always the same:

1) Have a backup locally and if possible, have one at your host too.
2) Do routine checks on drive and volume health so that you can spot the "average" problem from a mile away. Much better to be fixing something before it breaks!

Brad

Machete_ · 06-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

ebus - what you were saying about doing two raid ones and joining those together with a zero, that's a raid 10. Very cool, just more expensive because you need twice the drives for capacity.

Brad

Yep - again we agree. But If you need both speed and safety without paying for a LARGE setup, this is the way.

and sure, we use raid0 as well... but not mission critical stuff.. and examble would be temp. sourvematerisl for videoediting, and then storeing metadate on the san. But Most our stuff is NSPF (No single point of Faliure )

TheSaint · 06-08-2005, 06:39 PM

Raid 5 in theory is 100% reliable - unless you loose 2 disks at once - but in practice as said with crap hardware, crap software, or crap techs you can loose everything. You still need to backup daily and weekly and have multiple backups offsite, etc.. People not familiar with IT don't understand that RAID has nothing to do with backup, you can still remove every file on the disk by accident with one mistyped command.

Over the years I have lost disks more than once with raid-5 or raid-1 and safely recovered by replacing the disk. I always configure raid-5 with one or more spares (besides the parity disk). That way when a drive goes out a spare is swapped in automatically - to avoid the remote chance of a second failure before you can replace the first one.

MickeyG · 06-08-2005, 06:43 PM

I've lost two drives at once on a raid 5 system, so make sure to use backups.

leg4 · 06-08-2005, 08:19 PM

Thanks for all the great tips, info, news and stuff that you shared with me fellaz....

Who wants a beer? Heineken Dark Lagers in the Hizzy tonight....

06-08-2005, 04:50 PM	#1
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	How reliable is RAID ARRAY 5? ?How reliable is RAID ARRAY 5? thanks __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

06-08-2005, 04:56 PM	#4
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	Then what is it good for??? How did you lose all your data with RAID? __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

06-08-2005, 04:57 PM	#6
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	Raid 0... yes.... but other RAIDS... arent they reliable? __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

06-08-2005, 05:06 PM	#10
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	I made a huge mistake.. I got my first RAID system a few months ago... not knowing much about RAIDS.... I prebuilt with DELL online and got a RAID 0 (I didn't know any better...) 2.5 months later.... It shuts down and will not reboot.... Maxtor Calypso drives... are these crappy Maxtors? __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

06-08-2005, 05:23 PM	#13
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	I can't believe those fucking hahahahaS at Dell sold me a big server with my system (C) drive on RAID 0--- fucking hahahaha heads __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

06-08-2005, 04:52 PM	#2
SuckOnThis So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In my head Posts: 6,844	If you're talking in terms of data loss in case a drive goes not very. I had a drive go down with RAID 5 and lost everything.

06-08-2005, 04:54 PM	#3
synapse NameNetwork.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,175	by definition it's the most reliable disk config slower then say RAID 0 / 1 but solid.

06-08-2005, 04:57 PM	#5
Machete_ WINNING! Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,579	Raid is one of the safest.. if you lose one drive, you will continue running, if the software is set up correct... A lot of breakdowns happend when unskilled personals try to bring the raid online again. Of you have more than 8 raidsets, its also the fastest kombination of disks. I have 13 seperate workstations with its own 2mb/s throughput to the 1.4 TB SAN - even if one disk is down - that is only possible with raid5.

06-08-2005, 05:31 PM	#17
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	Actually, it wasn't a server.... it was an editing system.... My bad dawg! __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

06-08-2005, 05:54 PM	#19
toddler Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: austin, tx Posts: 1,911	RAID 5 is fine if you know what you are doing, or your tech folks do. RAID 0 is just slapping the drives together to make one logical LUN to the OS, which is worthless for business continuity. The real question is: what are the pertinent differences between RAID 0+1 and 1+0. No google allowed __________________ http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoddler/

06-08-2005, 06:23 PM	#20
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,812	ebus - what you were saying about doing two raid ones and joining those together with a zero, that's a raid 10. Very cool, just more expensive because you need twice the drives for capacity. RAID 0 definitely has it's place. In load balanced environments, like we have for some of our clients, it might look something like 3 to 5 identical servers each running on a RAID 0. If one of the servers RAID fails it's not a big deal, the others pick up the load until a replacement can be put online. That's a sweet setup for speed. But, it would still be incomplete without a backup. RAID 5 instability doesn't have to have anything to do with the technicians supporting it. Even with great techs, two drives can fail at once or a controller can equally screw up and cause data loss or complete failure. A better than average RAID 5 would have an additional hot-spare in the configuration so that when a problem is encountered time is less of the essence. RAID 1 is practical for medium and low volume servers if it's configured properly. This has two drives mirroring. What you lose is some performance... also, it's not really a backup. If data on a drive gets corrupted then that just gets replicated to the other drive. So, the lesson is always the same - have a backup. My advice is always the same: 1) Have a backup locally and if possible, have one at your host too. 2) Do routine checks on drive and volume health so that you can spot the "average" problem from a mile away. Much better to be fixing something before it breaks! Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

06-08-2005, 06:39 PM	#22
TheSaint Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Everywhere at once Posts: 991	Raid 5 in theory is 100% reliable - unless you loose 2 disks at once - but in practice as said with crap hardware, crap software, or crap techs you can loose everything. You still need to backup daily and weekly and have multiple backups offsite, etc.. People not familiar with IT don't understand that RAID has nothing to do with backup, you can still remove every file on the disk by accident with one mistyped command. Over the years I have lost disks more than once with raid-5 or raid-1 and safely recovered by replacing the disk. I always configure raid-5 with one or more spares (besides the parity disk). That way when a drive goes out a spare is swapped in automatically - to avoid the remote chance of a second failure before you can replace the first one. __________________ I have no signature

06-08-2005, 06:43 PM	#23
MickeyG Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 4,134	I've lost two drives at once on a raid 5 system, so make sure to use backups.

06-08-2005, 08:19 PM	#24
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	Thanks for all the great tips, info, news and stuff that you shared with me fellaz.... Who wants a beer? Heineken Dark Lagers in the Hizzy tonight.... __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here