Raid 0 And Raid 1? Wtf?

[abu_has_the_power]

i usually don't ask these kinds of noob questions, wat wtf is raid 0 and raid 1? i know that it has 2 do with having 2 hdds, but wtf is it? i can enable it on my new board. should i? i got 2 hdds both are ata133 :huh: :huh: :unsure: :blink:

[Java Boy]

I have 2 exactly identical 120GB hard drives set up in a Raid 1 formation "Mirror imaging" each other..so when your computers requesting information or is running a process it draws from 2 resources instaed of one.
Other than that I cant tell ya much about Raid as Im still discoveribg it on my new computer..it takes 12 hard drives(A through to L) and 6 CD/DVD rom drives

[Maximus359]

Simlar question, i apparently have raid on my computer. But this is where is goes loopy, I have 1 Harddrive which is partioned to give 2, thats fine i'am happy with that, i have a DVD RW +/- & a DVD-Rom, i'am happy with that. I have raid which will enable faster transfer yes :) , Then where the hell does a third DVD-ROM come from that say's it's RAID? Funny thing is scan for new hardware on system properties & it goes....Oh i find a third DVD-ROM but i only have 2 drives??????


Work that out, i still ain't, nethier can sony (SONY Computer)

So i had to disable the dam bugger, thing is it's useless i can access, as it say's no disc, can do nothing with it so i give up.

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by Java Boy@27 January 2004 - 21:38
I have 2 exactly identical 120GB hard drives set up in a Raid 1 formation "Mirror imaging" each other..so when your computers requesting information or is running a process it draws from 2 resources instaed of one.
Other than that I cant tell ya much about Raid as Im still discoveribg it on my new computer..it takes 12 hard drives(A through to L) and 6 CD/DVD rom drives
so raid 1 is basically running both hdds at once and u only get the storage space on 1 hdd? wtf? that sucks!

[lynx]

Raid 0 is striping, and requires at least 2 disks. This means that alternate sections of data are recorded on each disk. The purpose is to increase data throughput. To be effective, the disks should be on separate channels.

Raid 1 is mirroring and requires disks in pairs. This means that data is written to both disks of a pair for security purposes. If a disks fails, it can be rebuilt from info on the other disk, but the result is that capacity is halved. Recording is slightly slower than with a single disk however. It is unlikely you would really want raid 1 except in a commercial environment.

Raid 0+1 combines both strategies, for security and speed.

Raid 5 uses 3 or more disks. The info from n-1 of n disks is combined (checksummed) to produce the final disk contents. If a single disk fails, it is possible to reconstruct the disk from the contents of the other disks. However, the drawback is slower write times, since the checksum has to be calculated and all disks have to be written each time. By it's very nature, raid 5 has to include striping, so read performance is enhanced. With raid 5 you lose the capacity of one disk. Usually only used commercially.

Edit: there are also raid strategies 2,3,4 & 6, but these are not generally used. Raid 6 is often used to refer to raid 0+1, but there are slight differences.

[abu_has_the_power]

so this raid stuff isn't that helpful is it?

[lynx]

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@28 January 2004 - 01:52
so this raid stuff isn't that helpful is it?
You might want to use raid 0, simply for performance.

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by lynx+27 January 2004 - 21:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 27 January 2004 - 21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-abu_has_the_power@28 January 2004 - 01:52
so this raid stuff isn&#39;t that helpful is it?
You might want to use raid 0, simply for performance. [/b][/quote]
but don&#39;t i loose 120 gigs in the process?

[SciManAl]

This is actually very helpfull&#33;&#33;&#33; i have server that i bought and had been wondering... I could have sworn that there were 2 250GB harddrives... I was only getting 250... that makes sense the raid is for the backup feature.... I guess for a server that would be awsome&#33;&#33;

Thanks Lynx

[SciManAl]

QUOTE (lynx @ 27 January 2004 - 21:55)
QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 28 January 2004 - 01:52)
so this raid stuff isn&#39;t that helpful is it?&nbsp;


You might want to use raid 0, simply for performance.&nbsp;


but don&#39;t i loose 120 gigs in the process?

That is raid 1

Raid 0 simply putts alittle bit of the file on each of the harddrives.. ie it can make your read speeds better... when you are tring to open a file you have two seperate harddrives getting it and thus twice the performance...

[tesco]

with raid 0 you dont have the whoel file on each of the hard drives, you have half of it on each, when it needs the file it reads from both hard drives at the same time becuase it needs both halves, so its double the performance.

[Java Boy]

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+28 January 2004 - 02:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power &#064; 28 January 2004 - 02:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Java Boy@27 January 2004 - 21:38
I have 2 exactly identical 120GB hard drives set up in a Raid 1 formation "Mirror imaging" each other..so when your computers requesting information or is running a process it draws from 2 resources instaed of one.
Other than that I cant tell ya much about Raid as Im still discoveribg it on my new computer..it takes 12 hard drives(A through to L) and 6 CD/DVD rom drives
so raid 1 is basically running both hdds at once and u only get the storage space on 1 hdd? wtf? that sucks&#33; [/b][/quote]
Thats why Im saving up to get 12x 250GB hard drives as ive got raid 0 through to 5 available to me in my options.Now I just need to find out whats what...lol

[lynx]

Originally posted by ROSSCO_2004@28 January 2004 - 02:05
with raid 0 you dont have the whoel file on each of the hard drives, you have half of it on each, when it needs the file it reads from both hard drives at the same time becuase it needs both halves, so its double the performance.

That&#39;s true, as long as you remember that they need to be on separate channels for it to be effective.

There is also a small drawback with raid 0. If one of your drives goes down, you lose the contents of both drives (although of course you only need to replace one drive).

[abu_has_the_power]

ok. thanks. screw raid then. i&#39;ve got different stuff on both drives. my 2nd hdd for my &#39;stuff&#39;, and my 1st one for my programs and windows and so on

[SciManAl]

There is also a small drawback with raid 0. If one of your drives goes down, you lose the contents of both drives (although of course you only need to replace one drive).

Yeah that would suck, but then how often does the drive go down??? I have never had a drive go down in all 6 years of expierience :blink: ...


stuff&#39;
pron... :lol:

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by SciManAl@27 January 2004 - 22:13

There is also a small drawback with raid 0. If one of your drives goes down, you lose the contents of both drives (although of course you only need to replace one drive).

Yeah that would suck, but then how often does the drive go down??? I have never had a drive go down in all 6 years of expierience :blink: ...


stuff&#39;
pron... :lol:
lol. i do have some pron and some good pics of natalie portman and liv tyler on there. as well as some game images.

[lynx]

Originally posted by SciManAl@28 January 2004 - 02:13

There is also a small drawback with raid 0. If one of your drives goes down, you lose the contents of both drives (although of course you only need to replace one drive).

Yeah that would suck, but then how often does the drive go down??? I have never had a drive go down in all 6 years of expierience :blink: ...


stuff&#39;
pron... :lol:
I had one "fail" a couple of years ago, but fortunately managed to get a replacement before it totally crashed. The problem with raid 0 is that you can&#39;t really make a copy of just one disk, so you need to get a pair of disks (and another raid controller) or a much bigger disk in order to back up your data if one starts to fail.

That&#39;s why I would go for raid 5, or raid 0+1 if I could afford it.

Edit: mind you, if I could afford it I would go for 15000rpm UltraSCSI 320 disks. :rolleyes:

[SciManAl]

I had one "fail" a couple of years ago, but fortunately managed to get a replacement before it totally crashed. The problem with raid 0 is that you can&#39;t really make a copy of just one disk, so you need to get a pair of disks (and another raid controller) or a much bigger disk in order to back up your data if one starts to fail.

That&#39;s why I would go for raid 5, or raid 0+1 if I could afford it.

Very good points... I am thinking that is you had raid 0 for games etc that you just have to reinstall and then some non raid for files that would be best...