[Stevey]

I'm totally confused whats technically the benefit of RAID setup and what does it do that a normal HD won't and whats RAID 0?

This post has been edited by Stevey: 10 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

[ElfBane]

With tongue firmly in cheek, I present a Devil's Dictionary definition of RAID.
--- RAID is the process by which you add more HDDs in the hope that you will decrease their failure rate.---

The above response probably will give you the impression I'm not a fan of RAID... so good, it was meant to do so. Anyway, here is some info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID .

And here... .

The reason I didn't write out an expanation of RAID is that I'm lazy, and you can Google RAID setups as well as I can. But I will give you a list of problems with RAID.

1. It's more expensive. Buying extra HDDs will definitely add up.

2. It's a real PITA to set up. If you are not a PC power user ubergeek, avoid this experience if at all possible.

3. Adding extra HDDs actually INCREASES the chance that you will have a failure.

So, there you have it. To me, it is MUCH easier just to get in the habit of performing regular backups to your data. I also recommend cloning or imaging your HDDs on a regular basis. I clone/image my drives once a month, but I'm retired. You may need to do backups more often, as needed.

[Stevey]

ElfBane, on 11 January 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

With tongue firmly in cheek, I present a Devil's Dictionary definition of RAID.
--- RAID is the process by which you add more HDDs in the hope that you will decrease their failure rate.---

The above response probably will give you the impression I'm not a fan of RAID... so good, it was meant to do so. Anyway, here is some info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID .

And here... .

The reason I didn't write out an expanation of RAID is that I'm lazy, and you can Google RAID setups as well as I can. But I will give you a list of problems with RAID.

1. It's more expensive. Buying extra HDDs will definitely add up.

2. It's a real PITA to set up. If you are not a PC power user ubergeek, avoid this experience if at all possible.

3. Adding extra HDDs actually INCREASES the chance that you will have a failure.

So, there you have it. To me, it is MUCH easier just to get in the habit of performing regular backups to your data. I also recommend cloning or imaging your HDDs on a regular basis. I clone/image my drives once a month, but I'm retired. You may need to do backups more often, as needed.

thanks man but your effort takes me to the same sources i have already seen; lately..!! as i mentioned that online articles are good but i'd like a more detailed and easy to grasp language by someone,

edit: in the video; that funny sounding asian dude with his asian accent is hard to perceive !

This post has been edited by Stevey: 11 January 2013 - 05:39 AM

[LiveBrianD]

RAID O lets you combine the capacity of all the drives into one, netting you more speed and a higher failure rate. RAID 1 involves two identical hard drives, so of one fails, you won't lose anything, and can rebuild the array with another drive put in. (This is not a substitute for backup.) RAID 5 is a combination of both - unlike the others, it involves 3+ drives, one of which is used for parity data (and thus you get the storage of all drives minus 1, while maintaining redundancy).

[Stevey]

LiveBrianD, on 11 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

RAID O lets you combine the capacity of all the drives into one, netting you more speed and a higher failure rate. RAID 1 involves two identical hard drives, so of one fails, you won't lose anything, and can rebuild the array with another drive put in. (This is not a substitute for backup.) RAID 5 is a combination of both - unlike the others, it involves 3+ drives, one of which is used for parity data (and thus you get the storage of all drives minus 1, while maintaining redundancy).

could you kinda explain the underlined in the above quote?! ?

This post has been edited by Stevey: 11 January 2013 - 08:12 AM

[Rommel]

Stevey, on 11 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

thanks man but your effort takes me to the same sources i have already seen; lately..!! as i mentioned that online articles are good but i'd like a more detailed and easy to grasp language by someone,

edit: in the video; that funny sounding asian dude with his asian accent is hard to perceive !

I'll try to help but don't over think it as you read.
In RAID 0, "performance" two identical HDDs are configured in a array utillity and works as 1 HHD. They show up as a single drive. C:
When data is written to the drive the data is split between the two which allows faster performance.
That is why when 1 drive dies all data is lost. I don't care about that because if you use 1 HDD as primary drive, a simular situation exist.
Backup, backup regradless.
If loosing data is this critical to someone then go with less performance and more security with a RAID 1 config.
Data writes to both drives at the same time and creates a constance copy/backup.

There are other configurations but these are the most common.
RAID 0= two HDDs working as one to increase performance. Split data.
RAID 1= two HDDs working as two drives receiving same data. Slower but great constant backup.
Hope this helped.

[Stevey]

Rommel, on 11 January 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Stevey, on 11 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

thanks man but your effort takes me to the same sources i have already seen; lately..!! as i mentioned that online articles are good but i'd like a more detailed and easy to grasp language by someone,

edit: in the video; that funny sounding asian dude with his asian accent is hard to perceive !

I'll try to help but don't over think it as you read.
In RAID 0, "performance" two identical HDDs are configured in a array utillity and works as 1 HHD. They show up as a single drive. C:
When data is written to the drive the data is split between the two which allows faster performance.
That is why when 1 drive dies all data is lost. I don't care about that because if you use 1 HDD as primary drive, a simular situation exist.
Backup, backup regradless.
If loosing data is this critical to someone then go with less performance and more security with a RAID 1 config.
Data writes to both drives at the same time and creates a constance copy/backup.

There are other configurations but these are the most common.
RAID 0= two HDDs working as one to increase performance. Split data.
RAID 1= two HDDs working as two drives receiving same data. Slower but great constant backup.
Hope this helped.

yeah kinda.... , but i'm still confused with LiveB's comment....
...

[Rommel]

LiveBrianD, on 11 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

RAID O lets you combine the capacity of all the drives into one, netting you more speed and a higher failure rate. RAID 1 involves two identical hard drives, so of one fails, you won't lose anything, and can rebuild the array with another drive put in. (This is not a substitute for backup.) RAID 5 is a combination of both - unlike the others, it involves 3+ drives, one of which is used for parity data (and thus you get the storage of all drives minus 1, while maintaining redundancy).

Brian is saying if you combined 2 identical drives your total space on the RAID 0 is the sum of both drives.
So two 250GB HDDs in RAID 0 is 500GBs.
RAID 1 with two 250 GB HDDs is a total of 250GBs.

Not sure about failure rate or why there would be a higher one for RAID.
Brian is saying if you add another identical drive to what you have, just build the array as I explained and your good.
He is also saying there are other RAID configurations that combined both I just explained.

Look for utube videos on how to do this.
It was a mystery when I first did it too.
The video will let you see what we are saying.

Brian, I hope you don't mind me explaining your post for him.

[LiveBrianD]

Sure. To clarify, with RAID 5 and 3 drives, 250GB each, you get 250*(3-1)=500GB. With 4 drives (250GB each), you have 750GB. 250*(4-1)

[waldojim]

Ok, I took about 20 seconds to glance through the thread - and first want to comment about Elfbanes response:
IGNORE THAT RUBBISH.

First off, on most systems it is incredibly easy to set up.
Secondly, RAID was never about preventing failures. It is there to allow your system to KEEP RUNNING in the event of a hard drive failure. That is a very key difference. And yes, there is an exception to this - as there is in most cases.

There are three common forms of raid, 0, 1, and 5.
Raid 0 allows you to take multiple hard drives, and span data across them. You combine the speed of all the drives used here. This mode is also the exception mentioned above. There is NO room for failure. If any drive dies, you lose everything.
Raid 1 creates a perfect mirror from one drive to the next. If you use 2 hard drives this way, then if either one fails, your data is safe, and you keep running like nothing is wrong.
Raid 5 uses at least 3 drives to stripe the data across them, and keep parity bits for failure protection. This means you can lose any one drive, and still keep going, while having the added performance of the stripped drives.

I use RAID 5 every day on my media center, and have for several years now. This has protected me through a single drive failure just as it was expected to. It took about 5 minutes to setup, and I never looked back. It just works.

[Stevey]

waldojim, on 11 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok, I took about 20 seconds to glance through the thread - and first want to comment about Elfbanes response:
IGNORE THAT RUBBISH.

First off, on most systems it is incredibly easy to set up.
Secondly, RAID was never about preventing failures. It is there to allow your system to KEEP RUNNING in the event of a hard drive failure. That is a very key difference. And yes, there is an exception to this - as there is in most cases.

There are three common forms of raid, 0, 1, and 5.
Raid 0 allows you to take multiple hard drives, and span data across them. You combine the speed of all the drives used here. This mode is also the exception mentioned above. There is NO room for failure. If any drive dies, you lose everything.
Raid 1 creates a perfect mirror from one drive to the next. If you use 2 hard drives this way, then if either one fails, your data is safe, and you keep running like nothing is wrong.
Raid 5 uses at least 3 drives to stripe the data across them, and keep parity bits for failure protection. This means you can lose any one drive, and still keep going, while having the added performance of the stripped drives.

I use RAID 5 every day on my media center, and have for several years now. This has protected me through a single drive failure just as it was expected to. It took about 5 minutes to setup, and I never looked back. It just works.

so in RAID 5 we have both speed(like RAID 0) and backup(like RAID 1) as a combination of 3 drives, do you mean this?
and also I know we have to use a driver/utility for the RAID setup! Can we apply RAID setup to any normal type of HD or we need a special HD that supports RAID setup? does it come as a package of connectors and drives?
sorry if i'm asking too much

This post has been edited by Stevey: 12 January 2013 - 01:13 AM

[Stevey]

LiveBrianD, on 11 January 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Sure. To clarify, with RAID 5 and 3 drives, 250GB each, you get 250*(3-1)=500GB. With 4 drives (250GB each), you have 750GB. 250*(4-1)

oh so one drive out of every setup is dedicated towards providing the backup( RAID 1 property) and thats why its not read?

[ElfBane]

waldojim, on 11 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok, I took about 20 seconds to glance through the thread - and first want to comment about Elfbanes response:
IGNORE THAT RUBBISH.

I will defend myself.

I MAINTAIN THAT SETTING UP RAID IS NOT "EASY"!!!

@Stevey

Waldojim is an ubergeek which means that setting up RAID arrays IS "easy",,, for him. For the average PC user it is NOT easy. You will need to be a PC tech (or at least an enthusiast) to accomplish this. You will need to be comfortable opening up and working in the PC case. If you are NOT an experienced PC tech, then this process will be a big learning experience... as you are already finding out.

@Waldojim

Point 1: More HDDs WILL BE MORE expensive. Unless you have "insider" access. Period.
Point 2: Addressed above.
Point 3: More HDDs... more moving parts... higher failure rate. Using SDDs?? More expensive... AT LEAST. Failure rate?? To be determined, since they haven't really been out all that long.

@Stevey

I am unaware of your degree of skill. But I will repeat myself... setting up RAID is not for dilletantes. It can be a useful skill to learn, even if all you learn is that you don't want to do it again.

@Waldojim

Nothing I said was rubbish. Every point I made was/is a legitimate concern. Pleased to meet you ,too.

This post has been edited by ElfBane: 12 January 2013 - 02:18 AM

[ElfBane]

Stevey,

Here are acouple of sites that will give you an idea of what's coming up.

http://www.raid5-rec...m/setup-raid-5/ .

and http://rog.asus.com/...id-setup-guide/ .

The second link is for a specific MB, but the experiences will be similar across the range.

[Rommel]

Stevey, on 12 January 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

so in RAID 5 we have both speed(like RAID 0) and backup(like RAID 1) as a combination of 3 drives, do you mean this?
and also I know we have to use a driver/utility for the RAID setup! Can we apply RAID setup to any normal type of HD or we need a special HD that supports RAID setup? does it come as a package of connectors and drives?
sorry if i'm asking too much

No special HDD is needed.

It's a matter of changing a BIOS setting from IDE or ACHI to RAID.
That change gives you the ability to enter a place to build your array which is any RAID you wish to configure.
Asus calls theirs a "fastbuild Utility"

Install OS and incorporate the driver as previously mentioned.
I can build an RAID array in just minutes with asus.
MSI was trickier because their interface was a bit different and in my opinion not as user friendly.

My first build took quite some time because it was new to me and the instructions in the manual did not reflect the true steps I needed to take.
So your questions are certainly understandable.
I asked a ton of questions before I felt clear and informed enough.
But once you do it everything will be so much clearer.

You have nothing to loose to try.
If for whatever reason things don't work out, Change the BIOS setting back to IDE or ACHI, whichever it is now, ( not sure if you are running a SSD, should had checked back on your post) and you can reinstall your OS as you have it now.

[LiveBrianD]

Stevey, on 12 January 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 11 January 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Sure. To clarify, with RAID 5 and 3 drives, 250GB each, you get 250*(3-1)=500GB. With 4 drives (250GB each), you have 750GB. 250*(4-1)

oh so one drive out of every setup is dedicated towards providing the backup( RAID 1 property) and thats why its not read?

Let me put it this way:
Drive 1 has 011010
Drive 2 has 101001

As a result, the parity data on drive 3 would be 110011. Basically, 0+1=1, 1+0=1, 1+1=2 and is thus changed to 0 (also even), etc. If you lose drive 3 here, you haven't actually lost the data, only the parity, which can be recalculated. If you lose drive 1 or 2, that can be recalculated from the parity bit. This is why you sacrifice one drive's capacity there.

[waldojim]

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

waldojim, on 11 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok, I took about 20 seconds to glance through the thread - and first want to comment about Elfbanes response:
IGNORE THAT RUBBISH.

I will defend myself.

I MAINTAIN THAT SETTING UP RAID IS NOT "EASY"!!!

@Stevey

Waldojim is an ubergeek which means that setting up RAID arrays IS "easy",,, for him. For the average PC user it is NOT easy. You will need to be a PC tech (or at least an enthusiast) to accomplish this. You will need to be comfortable opening up and working in the PC case. If you are NOT an experienced PC tech, then this process will be a big learning experience... as you are already finding out.

@Waldojim

Point 1: More HDDs WILL BE MORE expensive. Unless you have "insider" access. Period.
Point 2: Addressed above.
Point 3: More HDDs... more moving parts... higher failure rate. Using SDDs?? More expensive... AT LEAST. Failure rate?? To be determined, since they haven't really been out all that long.

@Stevey

I am unaware of your degree of skill. But I will repeat myself... setting up RAID is not for dilletantes. It can be a useful skill to learn, even if all you learn is that you don't want to do it again.

@Waldojim

Nothing I said was rubbish. Every point I made was/is a legitimate concern. Pleased to meet you ,too.

First, just because you cannot read SIMPLE ONSCREEN directions, doesn't make it hard. It just means you need to learn how to read on screen directions. And before you get smart - that is ALL THAT IS NEEDED to set up raid.
Second, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE made any claims to the cost. But I must ask, which is cheaper, an external hard drive for backups, or an internal raid drive? Answer: the INTERNAL DRIVE.
Third: You are wrong, it isn't that simple.Hard drives have about a 4 year life span, AFTER WHICH the failure rates increase rapidly. During the first 4 years, the failure rates are negligible. Don't try to oversimplify when the oversimplification is WRONG. The other issue here, is that you are actually just as likely to have a SINGLE dead drive without raid, the difference being that raid is a 24x7 working backup.

You don't understand RAID and that is obvious. Please move on to a topic you DO understand.

[waldojim]

Stevey, on 12 January 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 11 January 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Sure. To clarify, with RAID 5 and 3 drives, 250GB each, you get 250*(3-1)=500GB. With 4 drives (250GB each), you have 750GB. 250*(4-1)

oh so one drive out of every setup is dedicated towards providing the backup( RAID 1 property) and thats why its not read?

It doesn't dedicate any one drive specifically. It spreads the error checking code across all the drives. But yes, one drives worth of space is used in the parity.

[waldojim]

For the sake of asking, are you planning this on an Intel or AMD based machine?

[ElfBane]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

waldojim, on 11 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok, I took about 20 seconds to glance through the thread - and first want to comment about Elfbanes response:
IGNORE THAT RUBBISH.

I will defend myself.

I MAINTAIN THAT SETTING UP RAID IS NOT "EASY"!!!

@Stevey

Waldojim is an ubergeek which means that setting up RAID arrays IS "easy",,, for him. For the average PC user it is NOT easy. You will need to be a PC tech (or at least an enthusiast) to accomplish this. You will need to be comfortable opening up and working in the PC case. If you are NOT an experienced PC tech, then this process will be a big learning experience... as you are already finding out.

@Waldojim

Point 1: More HDDs WILL BE MORE expensive. Unless you have "insider" access. Period.
Point 2: Addressed above.
Point 3: More HDDs... more moving parts... higher failure rate. Using SDDs?? More expensive... AT LEAST. Failure rate?? To be determined, since they haven't really been out all that long.

@Stevey

I am unaware of your degree of skill. But I will repeat myself... setting up RAID is not for dilletantes. It can be a useful skill to learn, even if all you learn is that you don't want to do it again.

@Waldojim

Nothing I said was rubbish. Every point I made was/is a legitimate concern. Pleased to meet you ,too.

First, just because you cannot read SIMPLE ONSCREEN directions, doesn't make it hard. It just means you need to learn how to read on screen directions. And before you get smart - that is ALL THAT IS NEEDED to set up raid.
Second, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE made any claims to the cost. But I must ask, which is cheaper, an external hard drive for backups, or an internal raid drive? Answer: the INTERNAL DRIVE.
Third: You are wrong, it isn't that simple.Hard drives have about a 4 year life span, AFTER WHICH the failure rates increase rapidly. During the first 4 years, the failure rates are negligible. Don't try to oversimplify when the oversimplification is WRONG. The other issue here, is that you are actually just as likely to have a SINGLE dead drive without raid, the difference being that raid is a 24x7 working backup.

You don't understand RAID and that is obvious. Please move on to a topic you DO understand.

I will defend myself again.

First--- There's more here than popping in a CD or clicking an executable file and following directions. You need to be a PC tech or knowledgeable hobbyist.
Second--- Cost is a legitimate concern when doing any IT project.
Third--- I know what RAID is. I also know that more of anything mechanical or electronic means you just have more stuff that can fail.

You like RAID. While I don't think RAID is worth the hassle and expense. It seems we disagree (classic British understatement inserted here) about this. Why don't we leave it at that?