Vista - Is RAID worth it?

07-29-2008

You can buy a motherboard that includes multiple raid controlers for about
£70, or less.
But there again you can opt for a high end Raid card in the order of £300
The two are completely different, both in performance, reliability and
support.
However raid, of any type, is not a replacement for backups.
The particular model of HD can also make a difference, they are not all
equal.

"Ron O'Brien" <castcall@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uhzevFW8IHA.4988@xxxxxx

Quote:

>I was just about to install a larger C: drive on my PC which was configured
>as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set as RAID1),
>then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey Frisch
>(Microsoft MVP) directed someone to read - Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible
>Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has made me
>re-think my plans.
>
> Is RAID really worth? it is a much more complex setup and a nightmare when
> things go wrong and, as the article points out, there is a 25 - 30% chance
> something will go wrong. Indeed my own experience of a previous PC with
> RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore everything
> when one HDD did fail after just 4 months.
>
> So I'm left with a total of 4 HDD's and wondering if I should even
> consider RAID, OK so I do a bit of HD video editing and RAID0 'could'
> speed things up, but will I really notice that gain? I have equally
> undertaken HD video editing on a much less powerful non-RAID PC and
> managed OK.
>
> The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind (and I would suggest in the mind
> of many others) always useful for was data protection (but with loads of
> hassle) so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can install all four
> drives so that only two are visible and the other two are a mirror image
> set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a day, some software
> would back up the main visible drives to the 'invisible' back-up drives.
> Thus if any drive failed, I could just switch connectors and re-boot.
>
> Now, is what I've said a pipe dream or can it happen, and if so what
> software and are there any obvious pitfalls - apart from the time to make
> the back-up at the end of each day?
>
>
> --
> Ron O'Brien
>

07-29-2008

Many companies build their servers with 6 drives in a 5 drive RAID 5
configuration. This protects the data in the basic 5 drive array from the
failure of any single drive. And in case any of the 5 drives fail the 6th
drive is automatically configured to replace the failed drive so the system
is still protected. The failed drive is then replaced.
Of course backups stored in another computer center or in an off site
location are also required in case the center in which the servers are
located is destroyed.
"DL" <address@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%230VoHwc8IHA.4108@xxxxxx

Quote:

> You can buy a motherboard that includes multiple raid controlers for about
> £70, or less.
> But there again you can opt for a high end Raid card in the order of £300
> The two are completely different, both in performance, reliability and
> support.
> However raid, of any type, is not a replacement for backups.
> The particular model of HD can also make a difference, they are not all
> equal.
>
> "Ron O'Brien" <castcall@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:uhzevFW8IHA.4988@xxxxxx

Quote:

>>I was just about to install a larger C: drive on my PC which was
>>configured as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set
>>as RAID1), then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey
>>Frisch (Microsoft MVP) directed someone to read - Why RAID is (usually) a
>>Terrible Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has
>>made me re-think my plans.
>>
>> Is RAID really worth? it is a much more complex setup and a nightmare
>> when things go wrong and, as the article points out, there is a 25 - 30%
>> chance something will go wrong. Indeed my own experience of a previous PC
>> with RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore
>> everything when one HDD did fail after just 4 months.
>>
>> So I'm left with a total of 4 HDD's and wondering if I should even
>> consider RAID, OK so I do a bit of HD video editing and RAID0 'could'
>> speed things up, but will I really notice that gain? I have equally
>> undertaken HD video editing on a much less powerful non-RAID PC and
>> managed OK.
>>
>> The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind (and I would suggest in the
>> mind of many others) always useful for was data protection (but with
>> loads of hassle) so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can
>> install all four drives so that only two are visible and the other two
>> are a mirror image set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a
>> day, some software would back up the main visible drives to the
>> 'invisible' back-up drives. Thus if any drive failed, I could just switch
>> connectors and re-boot.
>>
>> Now, is what I've said a pipe dream or can it happen, and if so what
>> software and are there any obvious pitfalls - apart from the time to make
>> the back-up at the end of each day?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron O'Brien
>>

>
>

08-01-2008

I used RAID0 for 4 years and had no problems - 2x200GB Cudas on a Intel
ICH5R (P4C800ED mobo); I had a defective SATA cable but I did not lose any
data. RAID0 is worth due to gain in speed/productivity.
Just 2 points - mostly home users:
1. use good quality hardware.
2. organize your files such that you can easily backup your documents and
whatever you create/modify daily.

Again, for a home user, I do not see the need to backup in real time the OS
and whatever software; you can reinstall those easily from backup images.
Michael

"Ron O'Brien" <castcall@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uhzevFW8IHA.4988@xxxxxx

Quote:

>I was just about to install a larger C: drive on my PC which was configured
>as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set as RAID1),
>then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey Frisch
>(Microsoft MVP) directed someone to read - Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible
>Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has made me
>re-think my plans.
>
> Is RAID really worth? it is a much more complex setup and a nightmare when
> things go wrong and, as the article points out, there is a 25 - 30% chance
> something will go wrong. Indeed my own experience of a previous PC with
> RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore everything
> when one HDD did fail after just 4 months.
>
> So I'm left with a total of 4 HDD's and wondering if I should even
> consider RAID, OK so I do a bit of HD video editing and RAID0 'could'
> speed things up, but will I really notice that gain? I have equally
> undertaken HD video editing on a much less powerful non-RAID PC and
> managed OK.
>
> The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind (and I would suggest in the mind
> of many others) always useful for was data protection (but with loads of
> hassle) so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can install all four
> drives so that only two are visible and the other two are a mirror image
> set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a day, some software
> would back up the main visible drives to the 'invisible' back-up drives.
> Thus if any drive failed, I could just switch connectors and re-boot.
>
> Now, is what I've said a pipe dream or can it happen, and if so what
> software and are there any obvious pitfalls - apart from the time to make
> the back-up at the end of each day?
>
>
> --
> Ron O'Brien
>

07-29-2008	#11 (permalink)
DL n/a posts	Re: Is RAID worth it? You can buy a motherboard that includes multiple raid controlers for about £70, or less. But there again you can opt for a high end Raid card in the order of £300 The two are completely different, both in performance, reliability and support. However raid, of any type, is not a replacement for backups. The particular model of HD can also make a difference, they are not all equal. "Ron O'Brien" <castcall@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:uhzevFW8IHA.4988@xxxxxx Quote: >I was just about to install a larger C: drive on my PC which was configured >as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set as RAID1), >then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey Frisch >(Microsoft MVP) directed someone to read - Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible >Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has made me >re-think my plans. > > Is RAID really worth? it is a much more complex setup and a nightmare when > things go wrong and, as the article points out, there is a 25 - 30% chance > something will go wrong. Indeed my own experience of a previous PC with > RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore everything > when one HDD did fail after just 4 months. > > So I'm left with a total of 4 HDD's and wondering if I should even > consider RAID, OK so I do a bit of HD video editing and RAID0 'could' > speed things up, but will I really notice that gain? I have equally > undertaken HD video editing on a much less powerful non-RAID PC and > managed OK. > > The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind (and I would suggest in the mind > of many others) always useful for was data protection (but with loads of > hassle) so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can install all four > drives so that only two are visible and the other two are a mirror image > set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a day, some software > would back up the main visible drives to the 'invisible' back-up drives. > Thus if any drive failed, I could just switch connectors and re-boot. > > Now, is what I've said a pipe dream or can it happen, and if so what > software and are there any obvious pitfalls - apart from the time to make > the back-up at the end of each day? > > > -- > Ron O'Brien >
My System Specs

07-29-2008	#12 (permalink)
JW n/a posts	Re: Is RAID worth it? Many companies build their servers with 6 drives in a 5 drive RAID 5 configuration. This protects the data in the basic 5 drive array from the failure of any single drive. And in case any of the 5 drives fail the 6th drive is automatically configured to replace the failed drive so the system is still protected. The failed drive is then replaced. Of course backups stored in another computer center or in an off site location are also required in case the center in which the servers are located is destroyed. "DL" <address@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:%230VoHwc8IHA.4108@xxxxxx Quote: > You can buy a motherboard that includes multiple raid controlers for about > £70, or less. > But there again you can opt for a high end Raid card in the order of £300 > The two are completely different, both in performance, reliability and > support. > However raid, of any type, is not a replacement for backups. > The particular model of HD can also make a difference, they are not all > equal. > > "Ron O'Brien" <castcall@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news:uhzevFW8IHA.4988@xxxxxx Quote: >>I was just about to install a larger C: drive on my PC which was >>configured as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set >>as RAID1), then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey >>Frisch (Microsoft MVP) directed someone to read - Why RAID is (usually) a >>Terrible Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has >>made me re-think my plans. >> >> Is RAID really worth? it is a much more complex setup and a nightmare >> when things go wrong and, as the article points out, there is a 25 - 30% >> chance something will go wrong. Indeed my own experience of a previous PC >> with RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore >> everything when one HDD did fail after just 4 months. >> >> So I'm left with a total of 4 HDD's and wondering if I should even >> consider RAID, OK so I do a bit of HD video editing and RAID0 'could' >> speed things up, but will I really notice that gain? I have equally >> undertaken HD video editing on a much less powerful non-RAID PC and >> managed OK. >> >> The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind (and I would suggest in the >> mind of many others) always useful for was data protection (but with >> loads of hassle) so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can >> install all four drives so that only two are visible and the other two >> are a mirror image set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a >> day, some software would back up the main visible drives to the >> 'invisible' back-up drives. Thus if any drive failed, I could just switch >> connectors and re-boot. >> >> Now, is what I've said a pipe dream or can it happen, and if so what >> software and are there any obvious pitfalls - apart from the time to make >> the back-up at the end of each day? >> >> >> -- >> Ron O'Brien >> > >
My System Specs

08-01-2008	#13 (permalink)
Phillips n/a posts	Re: Is RAID worth it? I used RAID0 for 4 years and had no problems - 2x200GB Cudas on a Intel ICH5R (P4C800ED mobo); I had a defective SATA cable but I did not lose any data. RAID0 is worth due to gain in speed/productivity. Just 2 points - mostly home users: 1. use good quality hardware. 2. organize your files such that you can easily backup your documents and whatever you create/modify daily. Again, for a home user, I do not see the need to backup in real time the OS and whatever software; you can reinstall those easily from backup images. Michael "Ron O'Brien" <castcall@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:uhzevFW8IHA.4988@xxxxxx Quote: >I was just about to install a larger C: drive on my PC which was configured >as RAID0 (there are also two other HDD's for data/storage set as RAID1), >then I read a thread from within this newsgroup in which Carey Frisch >(Microsoft MVP) directed someone to read - Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible >Idea http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29 and that has made me >re-think my plans. > > Is RAID really worth? it is a much more complex setup and a nightmare when > things go wrong and, as the article points out, there is a 25 - 30% chance > something will go wrong. Indeed my own experience of a previous PC with > RAID1 showed that it was by no means an easy task to restore everything > when one HDD did fail after just 4 months. > > So I'm left with a total of 4 HDD's and wondering if I should even > consider RAID, OK so I do a bit of HD video editing and RAID0 'could' > speed things up, but will I really notice that gain? I have equally > undertaken HD video editing on a much less powerful non-RAID PC and > managed OK. > > The one think that RAID1 'was' in my mind (and I would suggest in the mind > of many others) always useful for was data protection (but with loads of > hassle) so I'm thinking there must be a way whereby I can install all four > drives so that only two are visible and the other two are a mirror image > set so that at the end of the day, or maybe twice a day, some software > would back up the main visible drives to the 'invisible' back-up drives. > Thus if any drive failed, I could just switch connectors and re-boot. > > Now, is what I've said a pipe dream or can it happen, and if so what > software and are there any obvious pitfalls - apart from the time to make > the back-up at the end of each day? > > > -- > Ron O'Brien >
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
Raid 5 with Vista Ultimate x64 on non Raid drive... No boot disk detected!	Vista hardware & devices
Windows is unable to find system volume... (Raid & no Raid)	Vista installation & setup
nvidia RAID 10 broken into two RAID 10 drive sets	Vista General
Vista x64 dual boot WinXP with RAID-5 ICH8R messes up RAID array	Vista installation & setup
Vista RAID-5 doesn't recognize WinXP Raid-5?	Vista hardware & devices