• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "RAID - any advice..."

Collapse

  • JoJoGabor
    replied
    RAID-1 for he OS might be better than RAID-0. If any 1 disk failed in RAID-0 config, all data is lost. In RAID-1 if one disk fails, you still get pretty good performance. If its RAID-5 and one disk fails, performance is shoddy until the array is rebuilt.

    Leave a comment:


  • DiscoStu
    replied
    Originally posted by Ardesco View Post
    Why? Is that not the norm?
    In my own case it's plug external drive into laptop and run backup at haphazard intervals and hope nothing bad happens

    Leave a comment:


  • gadgetman
    replied
    The main thing to note is that different RAID levels offer two different main features; performance and data protection.

    The various RAID levels offer one or the other or a combination of the two.

    Here's a beginners guide:

    http://www.storagewiki.com/ow.asp?RAID

    Personally in my home 'server' I have the OS running on two drives in RAID 0 array (for performance) and my data is stored on an array of 4 x 500MB drives in a 2TB RAID 5 array (I'm thinking of upgrading to 4 x 1TB).

    This gives data security such that if any one of the drives go down you can hot swap a replacement and no data will be lost. This has actually happened to me, twice.

    Oh and for the levels which offer protection (via parity), this is at a cost of a percentage of the total storage capacity. For RAID 5 you lose 25%.

    You can use a dedicated RAID controller card or use the facilities built in to many motherboards.
    Last edited by gadgetman; 27 May 2008, 13:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ardesco
    replied
    Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post
    I think that deserves some Xeno geek points
    Why? Is that not the norm?

    Leave a comment:


  • DiscoStu
    replied
    Originally posted by Sockpuppet View Post
    Got a 3ware 9500S-12 in MyCos server. Ebay special @ £80 a few years ago.

    Laptop syncs over the network each tmie I can be arsed (most nights) and the server then syncs to an external HDD every week at midnight.
    I think that deserves some Xeno geek points

    Leave a comment:


  • Sockpuppet
    replied
    Originally posted by Ardesco View Post
    3ware raid card. Best is raid 6 so that if one drive fails, and then another fails during the rebuild there won't be any data loss. Raid 5 is the norm, at least raid 1.
    Got a 3ware 9500S-12 in MyCos server. Ebay special @ £80 a few years ago.

    Laptop syncs over the network each tmie I can be arsed (most nights) and the server then syncs to an external HDD every week at midnight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ardesco
    replied
    3ware raid card. Best is raid 6 so that if one drive fails, and then another fails during the rebuild there won't be any data loss. Raid 5 is the norm, at least raid 1.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mustang
    replied
    Originally posted by b0redom View Post
    What are you after?

    Cheap?
    Resiliant?
    Fast?

    Pick 2....
    Resilliant is highest priority. The other 2 would be opposite ends of the spectrum - cheap is always a bonus but not at the expense of anything else so I would say fast is marginally higher....

    Leave a comment:


  • b0redom
    replied
    What are you after?

    Cheap?
    Resiliant?
    Fast?

    Pick 2....

    Leave a comment:


  • KevinS
    replied
    IMO, RAID 5 is the cheapest and suitable for most (except databases).. RAID 10 (or 1+0 if you like) is my preference - striped for performance and mirrored for redundancy, but costs more as you need a minimum of 4 disks, whereas RAID 5 will work fine with 3..

    Leave a comment:


  • Mustang
    started a topic RAID - any advice...

    RAID - any advice...

    * Now posted in corect forum!! * I will do a search on the web but any thoughts on what level of RAID to go for if I want a decent file storage device? Are there increased levels of "safety" or do you select the type of RAID according to your needs?

Working...
X