IDE RAID 1 Performance Question

[Chris]

Equipment:

2 x 250GB WD Caviar HDD
2 x 60GB WD Caviar HDD


1 Highpoint HPT370 IDE RAID Controller ( 2 IDE channels, 2 drives each)



While it pains me to "waste" 310GB solely for fail-safe reasons, I want

to use RAID 1 to mirror both sets of drives. Reason being is that I'll
be storing a lot of digital media (archiving CD's and DVD's from my
personal library to be used with a streaming media center on my home
entertainment system), and the thought of having to "rip" the entire
library (easily over 600 titles) over again should one of the drives
fail gives me the cold sweats.


My question is regarding the physical arrangement of these disks on the

IDE controllers:


Under the scenario described above, is it best to use the similar
drives on each channel ( 2 x 60GB on IDE1 and 2 x 250GB on IDE 2), or
is it better to split the pair between channels ( 1x 60GB and 1 x 250GB

on IDE1, 1 x 60GB and 1 x 250GB on IDE2)?


Any insight as to why one method is preferred over the other would be
appreciated.


If anyone has a better alternative to RAID 1, I'm certainly open to
suggestions.


Thanks in advance,
Chris

 

[Rod Speed]

Equipment:

2 x 250GB WD Caviar HDD
2 x 60GB WD Caviar HDD

1 Highpoint HPT370 IDE RAID Controller
( 2 IDE channels, 2 drives each)

While it pains me to "waste" 310GB solely for fail-safe reasons,
I want to use RAID 1 to mirror both sets of drives. Reason being
is that I'll be storing a lot of digital media (archiving CD's and DVD's
from my personal library to be used with a streaming media center
on my home entertainment system), and the thought of having to
"rip" the entire library (easily over 600 titles) over again should
one of the drives fail gives me the cold sweats.

There's still a small risk while ever you have the backup drives
in the same system as what they are backing up. RAID1 isnt
a proper backup solution. A virus can wipe both the original
and the copy, so can a user mistake. The power supply can
fail and kill all the drives, the system can be stolen and the
house can burn down etc. And if the raid controller fails,
while the data may well be fine on the drives, it may not
be that easy to get the data back again too.

My question is regarding the physical
arrangement of these disks on the

IDE controllers:

Under the scenario described above, is it best to use the similar
drives on each channel ( 2 x 60GB on IDE1 and 2 x 250GB on IDE 2),
No.

or is it better to split the pair between channels ( 1x 60GB and
1 x 250GB on IDE1, 1 x 60GB and 1 x 250GB on IDE2)?

Yes, essentially because there will be activity on both
the drives of the same size simultaneously most of the
time and so its best to have them on separate channels.

Tho the other consideration is that when playing media
files, the speed of access isnt going to be a factor, so in
that sense it doesnt matter which arrangement you use.

Any insight as to why one method is preferred
over the other would be appreciated.

If anyone has a better alternative to RAID 1,
I'm certainly open to suggestions.

Having a bigger drive in sata removable drive bay would
be quite a bit safer for your data, basically because you
can remove the drive from the system when you arent
actually making a backup of the drives that are in the
system, so a virus cant touch that backup drive, and
neither can some user mistake either. If you keep it
offsite you are protected against fire and theft and
even a hiding it in the house somewhere will protect
you against theft quite effectively.

I'd certainly use a sata drive tho, because that doesnt
flout the standards like normal IDE drives do when they
are used in removable drive bays.

The other possibility is an eSATA external drive housing.
The big advantage with that over USB2 or firewire is that
you can monitor the drive temperature and since many of
the external cases dont cool the drives that well, thats useful.

You havent said why you have two separate RAID1 arrays either
and havent said whether both arrays will have just data files on
them or whether you have the OS on the 60G array. There isnt
really any need to have the OS on a RAID1 array because a
normal backup of the OS is fine for restoring that drive if the
drive fails.

 

[Chris]

Thanks Rod.

I understand that there is still some risk involved, and honestly -
I've had the two 60GB in a RAID 0 array for the past 4 years and have
never had any problems. I'd love to make the best full use of all 620
GB I have, but I'm not sure what the best method is.

The OS in on a separated 80GB IDE drive not attached to the RAID
controller.

The only thing on the RAID 1 arrays is going to be multimedia data.

I went with 2 arrays because I thought using disks of the same
make/model/size in pairs was the best bet.

Like I said - I am open to suggestions - I just don't want to spend
much more $$$ than I already have. If I went with the full use of
620GB, how in the world would I back that up effectively without
costing myself a fortune?

Chris

 

[Arno Wagner]

Equipment:

2 x 250GB WD Caviar HDD
2 x 60GB WD Caviar HDD

1 Highpoint HPT370 IDE RAID Controller ( 2 IDE channels, 2 drives each)


While it pains me to "waste" 310GB solely for fail-safe reasons, I want

to use RAID 1 to mirror both sets of drives. Reason being is that I'll
be storing a lot of digital media (archiving CD's and DVD's from my
personal library to be used with a streaming media center on my home
entertainment system), and the thought of having to "rip" the entire
library (easily over 600 titles) over again should one of the drives
fail gives me the cold sweats.

My question is regarding the physical arrangement of these disks on the

IDE controllers:

Under the scenario described above, is it best to use the similar
drives on each channel ( 2 x 60GB on IDE1 and 2 x 250GB on IDE 2), or
is it better to split the pair between channels ( 1x 60GB and 1 x 250GB

on IDE1, 1 x 60GB and 1 x 250GB on IDE2)?

Any insight as to why one method is preferred over the other would be
appreciated.

Mix them. With RAID1 you get interleaved accesses to both drives.
IDE is relatively slow when switching between disks on the same
channel.

If anyone has a better alternative to RAID 1, I'm certainly open to
suggestions.

External HDDs with USB, and everything of some worth at least in
two places (internal + external, or on two external disks).

RAID1 protects against disk-failure. It does not protect against
system failure (fire, wather, lightening, etc.) and user error.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

I understand that there is still some risk involved, and honestly -
I've had the two 60GB in a RAID 0 array for the past 4 years and have
never had any problems. I'd love to make the best full use of all 620
GB I have, but I'm not sure what the best method is.

The OS in on a separated 80GB IDE drive not attached to the RAID
controller.

The only thing on the RAID 1 arrays is going to be multimedia data.

I went with 2 arrays because I thought using disks of the same
make/model/size in pairs was the best bet.

Like I said - I am open to suggestions - I just don't want to spend
much more $$$ than I already have. If I went with the full use of
620GB, how in the world would I back that up effectively without
costing myself a fortune?

The obvious approach would be a 500G drive that you can image
the 620G of drives to, either in a removable mobile rack or eSATA
external case if you want to minimise the risk of losing everything.
If you dont mind that small risk, just have the 500G drive internal.

 

[timeOday]

I second the vote for using a normal non-RAID drives for storage, and
external (or networked) drives for backups. That way your backup is
away from the original, and you can't wipe out both with a single
command, and you don't need matching drives or RAID hardware.

IMHO the only point of RAID is when you can't afford the downtime
required to restore from backup. But RAID is not a backup.

 

[Arno Wagner]

I second the vote for using a normal non-RAID drives for storage, and
external (or networked) drives for backups. That way your backup is
away from the original, and you can't wipe out both with a single
command, and you don't need matching drives or RAID hardware.

IMHO the only point of RAID is when you can't afford the downtime
required to restore from backup. But RAID is not a backup.

Actually it is pretty convenient. I don't mind the cost of the
additional disk, but I do mind spending hours to restore. And
so far I have had significanlty more disk troubles than user
failures. Might be different for others.

So, RAID is not a replacement for a backup, but it can supplement
a backup and it is a replacement (to some degree) for a backup
of stuff that you can get again.

Arno

 

[Art]

Equipment:

2 x 250GB WD Caviar HDD
2 x 60GB WD Caviar HDD


1 Highpoint HPT370 IDE RAID Controller ( 2 IDE channels, 2 drives each)



While it pains me to "waste" 310GB solely for fail-safe reasons, I want

to use RAID 1 to mirror both sets of drives. Reason being is that I'll
be storing a lot of digital media (archiving CD's and DVD's from my
personal library to be used with a streaming media center on my home
entertainment system), and the thought of having to "rip" the entire
library (easily over 600 titles) over again should one of the drives
fail gives me the cold sweats.


My question is regarding the physical arrangement of these disks on the

IDE controllers:


Under the scenario described above, is it best to use the similar
drives on each channel ( 2 x 60GB on IDE1 and 2 x 250GB on IDE 2), or
is it better to split the pair between channels ( 1x 60GB and 1 x 250GB

on IDE1, 1 x 60GB and 1 x 250GB on IDE2)?


Any insight as to why one method is preferred over the other would be
appreciated.


If anyone has a better alternative to RAID 1, I'm certainly open to
suggestions.

If you can afford some minor coin, here's what I use:

Linksys network storage controller ($99 I think)

I bought two external hard drive cases (I think $30 each) and attach them to
the storage link via USB. Then I set a backup to run weekly on the
OS/Programs drive and daily on the data drive. I feel your pain. I
capture/edit family video and did lose everything once with no backup! The
key to that sentence is the word "once". Recapturing/remastering 5 DVDs
worth of memories wasn't the most fun thing you can do. That's when I went
to the Linksys. A bonus is you can access your data from FTP outside your
network and it shows up as a drive letter inside your network.

HTH,
Art