W
WannaKatana
I just wondered if there are any compelling reasons not to use RAID.
Joel E
Joel E
G
Guest
WannaKatana said:
RAID 0, yes -- it worsens the reliability. Otherwise RAID is better,
unless it causes you to become complacent about making backups, which
are still necessary.
B
blacklotus90
If you're using data stripping and one drive fails, all your data will
be lost.
be lost.
R
Rod Speed
WannaKatana said:
Depends on which RAID.
Excellent reason to not use RAID0 is that your
data is much more at risk on a hard drive failure.
A good reason for not using RAID1 is that it costs twice as much per GB.
Its usually more hassle to use than not using it too.
X
x0054
What happens when one of the drives craps out and your backup is 30 days
old? RAID1 is grate, I run everything on RAID1 and love it. The security
is grate. A good RAID1 setup combined with a log type filesystem gives
you best of both worlds, archiving and redundancy. And backs up are easy
. If you get an actual full blown server with hot swap drives its aseasy as swapping out a drive for a clean one and letting the RAID
rebuild its self.
Raid0 is pointless though, like every one pointed out, no real reason to
run raid0, unless you really really need a gigantic drive to store
something like a raw film scan or NSA phone call DB
Raid5 is very very slow for writing data to disk, at least on slower
PCs. And in many case you can get 2 larger disks cheaper then 3 disks
half that size. And you do not get easy backup benefit of Raid1.
Just my 2 cents,
- Bogdan
P
Paul
WannaKatana said:
Complexity.
Have you ever read a posting from someone whose RAID
has a "degraded" or "failed" status, and they don't know what to
do next ? Say, for example, someone on USENET tells you to
"delete array" and "create array" again, to fix a problem.
Would you do it, or would you be paralyzed with fear ?
Basically, all your data is sitting there, until you
make some crucial mistake.
And some people make huge RAID arrays, like 1TB, and
don't bother to have a backup strategy. And then they
expect some data recovery software utility for $39.95,
to recover all their data.
RAID is fine, if you train on it when it doesn't have
any data on it. But most people just set up the array,
format and forget it, and never learn how to do maintenance
on it. And if you don't get a couple nuisance "degraded"
statuses a year, you're doing something wrong.
Who needs the hassle ? Better to concentrate your energies
on your backup system. Which you need anyway (like when
your power supply burns all the drives at the same time,
on your RAID5 array).
Paul
R
Rod Speed
I'm not that stupid. And I get a lot more generations of backup
not using the backup drive thats on the other side of the lan
in a RAID1 config. It isnt actually a separate drive, its just a
bigger drive than I would otherwise have got, used as a backup
destination, with the crucial stuff on DVD as well, offsite.
RAID1 is grate, I run everything on RAID1 and love it.
The security is grate. A good RAID1 setup combined
with a log type filesystem gives you best of both worlds,
archiving and redundancy. And backs up are easy
My backups are just as easy.
I dont need that level of quick recovery on hard drive failure.
I have only had one fail in decades and that
was a gradual failure, increasing bads.
Raid0 is pointless though, like every one pointed out, no real reason
to run raid0, unless you really really need a gigantic drive to store
something like a raw film scan or NSA phone call DB
Pointless even for that. And only fools do raw video anymore.
I wanna refund.
U
UCLAN
WannaKatana said:
I find I get better value with a professional exterminator, especially
for ants.
K
kramer.newsreader
My backup system is not so sophisticated but it works for me. Much of
my data is not backed up at all because I don't care about a lot of the
junk. The more important stuff is written on two hds. The even more
important stuff gets burned to DVDs (and some of the DVDs even stay
with a friend of mine).
my data is not backed up at all because I don't care about a lot of the
junk. The more important stuff is written on two hds. The even more
important stuff gets burned to DVDs (and some of the DVDs even stay
with a friend of mine).
L
larry moe 'n curly
Rod said:
$80 US verses $40 for 160GB?
R
Rod Speed
larry moe 'n curly said:
Yep, and many use bigger drives than that now.
K
kony
yes there are
X
x0054
With log FS you can get unlimited versions of each file. Thus not only
are you backed up with a RAID1 but also archived for 5 or 6 versions of
each file back without spending 5 times the space. Plus, in case of
failure, you can be back and running in no time, unlike with DVD
restore. And with Log Type FS you can have online access to prior copies
of your file.
Really? Do you ran mySQL or other DB. How do you do backups of that? How
long do you have to kill your DB for, to back it up. Mine is never down
Well, I do, as I run web server, and I had instant failures when drive
motor burned out and it would not spin.
Only fools edit there own video or put out films, right? If you are
cutting a film you will have dozens of hours of uncompressed MPEG or RAW
film and you need to play with it to cut it together. You can not
compress video properly till you get it all cut up. Hence RAID0 is
useful if you need gigantic disk size and have really big files.
I'll get right on that
- Bogdan
X
x0054
Can you point out what your needs are? I think many people here are
answering the question thinking that you are talking about a home system.
Are you? if so then by all means get your self a backup drive and relax. If
you are talking about a web, video, or industrial server, then the answer
is you can't beat a RAID setup.
Is the question "I just wondered if there are any compelling reasons not to
use RAID in a home pc?" In which case, absolutely.
- Bogdan
R
Rod Speed
Its unlikely that that is what he was asking about.
Get it to keep transaction logs and backup as well.
Never, nada, ziltch.
Mine is never down
Mine too.
Sure, but you dont know that that is his situation.
Didnt say that. RAW video as opposed to avis etc.
Thats not RAW.
Hardly anyone bothers with film anymore.
Nope, non RAW video doesnt need the bandwidth.
X
x0054
[cut]
I agree, I have no idea what the OP's situation is, thus my post asking
to verify it. But my raw video argument for RAID0 holds nonetheless
Average movie that you could print to film (as to be able to sell it or
play in a theater), will run in the 40-80GB range uncompressed, and
don't forget 40 hours or so of crap footage that you need to cut. For
that situation RAID0 is useful. But in most situation RAID0 it's
useless. I simple pointed out that RAID0 isn't completely idiotic, but
it simply became less pertinent in the era of 500GB drives.
- Bogdan
I agree, I have no idea what the OP's situation is, thus my post asking
to verify it. But my raw video argument for RAID0 holds nonetheless
Average movie that you could print to film (as to be able to sell it or
play in a theater), will run in the 40-80GB range uncompressed, and
don't forget 40 hours or so of crap footage that you need to cut. For
that situation RAID0 is useful. But in most situation RAID0 it's
useless. I simple pointed out that RAID0 isn't completely idiotic, but
it simply became less pertinent in the era of 500GB drives.
- Bogdan
R
Rod Speed
x0054 said:
I agree, I have no idea what the OP's situation is, thus my post asking
to verify it. But my raw video argument for RAID0 holds nonetheless
No it doesnt.
Only a fool has that RAW format on their hard drive today.
Nope, not if you arent stupid enough to store it RAW.
I never said it wasnt.
X
x0054
x0054 said:[cut]Raid0 is pointless though, like every one pointed out, no real
reason to run raid0, unless you really really need a gigantic
drive to store something like a raw film scan or NSA phone call
DB
Pointless even for that. And only fools do raw video anymore.
Only fools edit there own video or put out films, right?
Didnt say that. RAW video as opposed to avis etc.
If you are cutting a film you will have dozens of hours of
uncompressed MPEG
Thats not RAW.
or RAW film
Hardly anyone bothers with film anymore.
and you need to play with it to cut it together. You can
not compress video properly till you get it all cut up.
Wrong.
Hence RAID0 is useful if you need gigantic
disk size and have really big files.
Nope, non RAW video doesnt need the bandwidth.
Raid5 is very very slow for writing data to disk, at least on
slower PCs. And in many case you can get 2 larger disks cheaper
then 3 disks half that size. And you do not get easy backup
benefit of Raid1.
Just my 2 cents,
I wanna refund.
I'll get right on thatI agree, I have no idea what the OP's situation is, thus my post
asking to verify it. But my raw video argument for RAID0 holds
nonetheless
No it doesnt.
Only a fool has that RAW format on their hard drive today.
Nope, not if you arent stupid enough to store it RAW.
You do not compress video before you print it to film! The resolution of
an average DVD is about 400,000 pixles compressed. A resolution of a
35mm film is 20 to 30 times that much ranging from 8 to 12 million
pixels per shot. Good DV cameras can already shoot at that resolution.
So, just think about it. An average DVD 2 hour movie is 4GB. That same
movie at 8 megapixel resolution would be 80GB. And that's compressed!
Yes DVDs are compressed! Sit close to your TV and you'll see all kinds
of small art effects. An uncompressed theater quality footage would
actually take up close to 160-200GB. My 40-80GB figure was refereeing to
16mm quality shots, but still very big.
In the end, why do you argue about shit you obviously have no idea
about. Saying "no" isn't enough. Tell me how you would compress 30 hours
of 8 megapixle video so that it would fit on any single hard drive
available today on the market.
As I said RAID0 is commonly used in the movie industry for the purposes
described above.
- Bogdan
R
Rod Speed
x0054 said:x0054 said:[cut]
Raid0 is pointless though, like every one pointed out, no real
reason to run raid0, unless you really really need a gigantic
drive to store something like a raw film scan or NSA phone call
DB
Pointless even for that. And only fools do raw video anymore.
Only fools edit there own video or put out films, right?
Didnt say that. RAW video as opposed to avis etc.
If you are cutting a film you will have dozens of hours of
uncompressed MPEG
Thats not RAW.
or RAW film
Hardly anyone bothers with film anymore.
and you need to play with it to cut it together. You can
not compress video properly till you get it all cut up.
Wrong.
Hence RAID0 is useful if you need gigantic
disk size and have really big files.
Nope, non RAW video doesnt need the bandwidth.
Raid5 is very very slow for writing data to disk, at least on
slower PCs. And in many case you can get 2 larger disks cheaper
then 3 disks half that size. And you do not get easy backup
benefit of Raid1.
Just my 2 cents,
I wanna refund.
I'll get right on thatI agree, I have no idea what the OP's situation is, thus my post
asking to verify it. But my raw video argument for RAID0 holds
nonetheless
No it doesnt.
Only a fool has that RAW format on their hard drive today.
Nope, not if you arent stupid enough to store it RAW.
Hardly anyone bothers with film anymore with personal desktop systems.
See above.
See above.
See above.
I know that **** all personal desktop systems
have anything to do with FILM anymore.
Yes, if you are involved with FILM, things are different, but the
OP is VERY unlikely to be asking about systems used for FILM.
You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
See above.
Irrelevant to the OP's original question.
X
x0054
x0054 said:[cut]
Raid0 is pointless though, like every one pointed out, no real
reason to run raid0, unless you really really need a gigantic
drive to store something like a raw film scan or NSA phone call
DB
Pointless even for that. And only fools do raw video anymore.
Only fools edit there own video or put out films, right?
Didnt say that. RAW video as opposed to avis etc.
If you are cutting a film you will have dozens of hours of
uncompressed MPEG
Thats not RAW.
or RAW film
Hardly anyone bothers with film anymore.
and you need to play with it to cut it together. You can
not compress video properly till you get it all cut up.
Wrong.
Hence RAID0 is useful if you need gigantic
disk size and have really big files.
Nope, non RAW video doesnt need the bandwidth.
Raid5 is very very slow for writing data to disk, at least on
slower PCs. And in many case you can get 2 larger disks cheaper
then 3 disks half that size. And you do not get easy backup
benefit of Raid1.
Just my 2 cents,
I wanna refund.
I'll get right on that
I agree, I have no idea what the OP's situation is, thus my post
asking to verify it. But my raw video argument for RAID0 holds
nonetheless
No it doesnt.
Average movie that you could print to film (as to be able to sell
it or play in a theater), will run in the 40-80GB range
uncompressed,
Only a fool has that RAW format on their hard drive today.
and don't forget 40 hours or so of crap footage that
you need to cut. For that situation RAID0 is useful.
Nope, not if you arent stupid enough to store it RAW.
Hardly anyone bothers with film anymore with personal desktop systems.
Not, film, film quality footage witch can be digital but needs to be at
8 megapixels or more to look right on a large screen (theater screen).
Yes I do!
Why not, perhaps the OP is trying to brake into film business. You do
not know that he or she isn't. And even if not, I simply pointed out
that RAID0 is useful if you need very large disk size, like 1 or 2 TB to
cope with various things. One of them would be film production. And you
can easily cut a studio quality film on a home computer. You can even
network few computers for distributed processing and do it in under a
day of CPU time.
Why are you arguing about it, you know I am right about this. As well as
I am right about usefulness of RAID1.
- Bogdan