Permabanned
RAID 1 or RAID 10?
- Thread starter Ben M
- Start date
Associate
RAID 1+0 will be faster as it is stripping the drives aswell as mirroring.
Okay, cheers guys 
Soldato
Raid 1+0?? ?you can do that ?
Man of Honour
You can't do that as a proper RAID array but you could do it manually or semi-automatically with Synctoy and the like.
If the raid failed would sync toy let you restore it from the large harddrive?
Man of Honour
Not fully. Synctoy will only copy individual files so you couldn't recover completely.
What you could do is use a combination of Synctoy and Acronis True Image to take a full image of the disk occasionally and then use Synctoy to keep documents and other files up to date.
What you could do is use a combination of Synctoy and Acronis True Image to take a full image of the disk occasionally and then use Synctoy to keep documents and other files up to date.
Raid 1 will give you read speed increase.
"Increased read performance occurs when using a multi-threaded operating system that supports split seeks, very small performance reduction when writing."
That sounds good. Don't need files. Just want to keep an image of a fresh install. Files our kept on separate drives anyway.
care to share the source as i bet any increase it minor,
and in comparing a Raid0 to Raid1 the Raid 1 will be insignificant for speed compared to Raid0
edit:
just seen this thread. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17952922
Last edited:
It's depends on the task. (And a hardware based Raid is prefered)
I had raid 1 set up a while back and got around 20% improvement using HD Tune compared to a single drive.
I use raid 0 myself, and backup a lot.
(That said Raid1 is no subsitiute for backing up)
Associate
RAID 10 is basically two RAID 0/1/5 arrays mirrored.
Edit: my bad, four disks can be used with 10, with the redundancy across the top level RAID in case of disk faulure. 6 disk for both RAIDs to remain operational during a failure.
Ignore me... the more I refresh my memory on server RAID, the more complicated it gets..... anyone for RAID 100? that will be lightening! LOL
Last edited:
Four drives will be faster, and it'll cope better with a drive failure.
Its perfectly possible to make a 3 drive raid0 say, and use this as one half of a raid 1 with a larger drive. What I image you'll achieve is write performance equal to that of the single larger drive, and read performance somewhere between raid 0 and 1 depending on which half of the raid its reading from at any one time. This is probably not the answer.
Raid 5 is also worth a look, raid 10 kills it on performance, but raid 5 only costs the capacity of one drive rather than half the capacity of the array
Its perfectly possible to make a 3 drive raid0 say, and use this as one half of a raid 1 with a larger drive. What I image you'll achieve is write performance equal to that of the single larger drive, and read performance somewhere between raid 0 and 1 depending on which half of the raid its reading from at any one time. This is probably not the answer.
Raid 5 is also worth a look, raid 10 kills it on performance, but raid 5 only costs the capacity of one drive rather than half the capacity of the array
Man of Honour
No, this is not possible.
I was thinking about 5, but was told that it isn't too great when using a mobo's built in RAID controller, because it struggles to handle it.
just go for 4 320's in raid 0 
and dont keep anything that you really cant afford to loose on there.
but seriously how much stuff do people really have that they cant afford to loose, most of whats on our machines can be reinstalled, and its only a few small files that are truely iritrievable. a cheap usb pen could solve that for you.
and before somebody chimes in with....oh my god i keep all my photos and videos etc on my computer, i cant afford to loose them. all i can say is, if they are that valuble then you shouldnt only keep one copy of them.
make a copy of them somewhere, online or cd/dvd, second hard disk etc.
and dont keep anything that you really cant afford to loose on there.but seriously how much stuff do people really have that they cant afford to loose, most of whats on our machines can be reinstalled, and its only a few small files that are truely iritrievable. a cheap usb pen could solve that for you.
and before somebody chimes in with....oh my god i keep all my photos and videos etc on my computer, i cant afford to loose them. all i can say is, if they are that valuble then you shouldnt only keep one copy of them.
make a copy of them somewhere, online or cd/dvd, second hard disk etc.
re: motherboard controller struggling to handle it. Performance is definitely fine for a data storage volume, it's coping fine with two other computers running video off the volume as well. However I have had the computer crash occasionally when running four f1s, a raptor and an ssd off the same intel ich10r. OCZ forums thought this was overloading the southbridge, but all I could find on google was my own thread asking if the ssd had gone bad. Since I moved the raptor off its been fine, but I am a bit more reluctant to add a fifth samsung to the array as a result of this.
I disagree.
example, three 320gb drives, /dev/sd[a,b,c], one 1tb drive /dev/sdd
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md0 /dev/sdd1
mdadm --assemble /dev/md1
mount /dev/md1 /mnt/raid
Everything is a file.
You'll have about 30gb left over in this case, which could probably be a boot volume if you were careful.
It's not true hardware raid, but mdadm doesn't trail too badly in performance from the raid 5 benchmarks I looked up months ago
I disagree.
example, three 320gb drives, /dev/sd[a,b,c], one 1tb drive /dev/sdd
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md0 /dev/sdd1
mdadm --assemble /dev/md1
mount /dev/md1 /mnt/raid
Everything is a file.
You'll have about 30gb left over in this case, which could probably be a boot volume if you were careful.
It's not true hardware raid, but mdadm doesn't trail too badly in performance from the raid 5 benchmarks I looked up months ago
Last edited: