Is it possible to combine both? Raid 0 is useful as you get twice the read/write speed (roughtly) but double the chance of failure. Raid 1 is useful as the second drive is a mirror so if one fails you have a perfect backup on the other one. Can you get 4 drives, in 2 pairs, and have each pair RAID 0 for speed but treat each pair as RAID 1 for added backup security?
RAID 0 and 1 combined?
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/RAID 0 and 1 combined? RAID5 I think?
Yes, you can do RAID 0+1 with a minimum of 4 matching hard drives. However, if you can, do RAID 1+0 instead as it has much better fault tolerance.
Yes. It's possible to have a mirror of 2 stripped drives. However as retro.hack points out, a RAID 5 setup (which uses parity) is just as good, and saves you a drive (or gives you more space, depending on how badly you want 4 drives).
Isn't RAID 5 slower than RAID 1+0 though when writing lots of files due to the parity updates?.
hmm thanks. I wanted RAID 0 for speed and RAID 1 for backup security. but RAID 5 sounds interesting if it isn't slower...
I love my RAID0 setup. 2x 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA-300 drives.
I get around 100mb/s consistent transferrate with them, but reach up to 196mb/s in bursts.
I get around 100mb/s consistent transferrate with them, but reach up to 196mb/s in bursts.
Isn't RAID 5 slower than RAID 1+0 though when writing lots of files due to the parity updates?
It's always a trade-off with drives/speed. While it may be marginally slower, you get more space, and for most non-SAN environments, it's plenty fast enough. retro.hack: that's an awesome speed, even the fastest 10000pm single drive can only reach 80-90Mb.
I just wikied and Raid % is fast for reading but slower for writing so not so cool. Seems like 0+1 or 1+0 is the way to go but wonder if there is any advantage to one over the other.
I just wikied and Raid % is fast for reading but slower for writing so not so cool. Seems like 0+1 or 1+0 is the way to go but wonder if there is any advantage to one over the other.
RAID 0+1 = Less fault tolerance
RAID 1+0 = Better fault tolerance
RAID 5 = Is better than the previous two but a small decrease in speed due to parity. However if you have good RAID hardware and can cache reads/writes then the speed difference is reduced even further.
If you want raw speed with average fault tolerance then go for RAID 1+0, else go for RAID 5 if you don't mind losing a little speed under certain circustances.
However you cut it, any of those will increase performance over a single drive solution.
If I were doing it for personal use then I'd go for RAID 1+0 and still backup important data (always). If I were doing it for a company then I'd go for maximum reliability.
RAID 1+0 = Better fault tolerance
RAID 5 = Is better than the previous two but a small decrease in speed due to parity. However if you have good RAID hardware and can cache reads/writes then the speed difference is reduced even further.
If you want raw speed with average fault tolerance then go for RAID 1+0, else go for RAID 5 if you don't mind losing a little speed under certain circustances.
However you cut it, any of those will increase performance over a single drive solution.
If I were doing it for personal use then I'd go for RAID 1+0 and still backup important data (always). If I were doing it for a company then I'd go for maximum reliability.
hmm, interesting thanks. I understood that raid 5 was fast at reading but slow at writing due to having to store the parity data all the time (it doesn't need to be read unless CRC check required or when rebuilding a missing drive).
I have a good backup regime right now. I was just wondering about speed increase and the possibility of having OS stored on RAID for quick repair time.
I have a good backup regime right now. I was just wondering about speed increase and the possibility of having OS stored on RAID for quick repair time.