| Re: R.A.I.D. Questions? Should I split it or keep it as one? [message #390757 is a reply to message #390482] |
Tue, 16 June 2009 01:42   |
Speedy059
Messages: 367
Registered: August 2003
Karma:
|
Commander |
|
|
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Sat, 13 June 2009 11:21 |
RAID 1 is THE MOST OVERRATED RAID LEVEL. Simply because it *looks* like a form of backup, while it actually is not. As assoon a virus removes/damages your file, it will do so on both disks. RAID 1 only protects you from 1 disk dying. Which from my experiance doesnt happen often, and if it is dying, SMART will usually give an error.
The advantage of RAID 0 is that you'll get increased sustained read/writes, and a possible average lower seektime (with multiple IO).
Idealy you would run RAID 5 or RAID 6. RAID 5 can be done with just 3 disks, and will give you a 1/3 loss of total diskspace, but 1 disk can drop out of the array without problems.
RAID 6 would give you the speed benefits of RAID 0, but with the same level of redundancy as RAID 1. Minimum amount of disks is 4. You'll lose 50% of the total diskspace, but you can also lose 2 disks without losing data.
|
Yes that is correct, Raid 1 will not protect against viruses or anything else that is similar to it. It only protects from hard drive failure.
I'm unsure that Raid 0 will increase your seek time since the hard drives are still going the same speed. But it can transfer files quicker....
Idealy you are wasting your time and resources going for Raid 5+ when for a personal computer. Any important information should be backed up remotely, not locally. I honestly haven't had much lucky with raid systems as it's always something else that ruins your data like what you mentioned earlier.
Oldest Renegade Repository (10yrs worth of maps!)
http://renegade.dmehosting.com/
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
