RAID vs. non-RAID?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ellen Hall
  • Start date Start date
E

Ellen Hall

I'm looking at buying a new XP computer. I have been researching whether to
choose a RAID setup or a non-RAID. The RAID comes with an "Integrated
Serial ATA RAID controller." Of the RAID, RAID 0 seems like the logical
choice (I have no special data protection needs to warrant the mirroring of
RAID 1, the other choice). Getting the performance boost sounds great.
What I'm considering, though, is that I may be just fine with the older
SATA-type setup that I have in my 98SE computer. I back up my data.

If I choose the non-RAID configuration, will I be "behind the times" as far
a technology goes? Is there a compelling reason to consider the RAID
performance, where data recover may be more challenging if there's a
problem?

Thanks for any thoughts!
Ellen Hall
 
I'm looking at buying a new XP computer. I have been researching whether to
choose a RAID setup or a non-RAID. The RAID comes with an "Integrated
Serial ATA RAID controller." Of the RAID, RAID 0 seems like the logical
choice (I have no special data protection needs to warrant the mirroring of
RAID 1, the other choice). Getting the performance boost sounds great.
What I'm considering, though, is that I may be just fine with the older
SATA-type setup that I have in my 98SE computer. I back up my data.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself this - do you really know what RAID is and what it can do
for you. Since most home users have problems of one type or another,
RAID-0 can often be a problem... If you have a hardware fault, a drive
failure, etc.. you can lose it all.

RAID-1, provides read speed, but not write speed, it also acts to
provide a redundant drive in case one of them fails - do not confuse
this with a backup or the need to not backup.

If I choose the non-RAID configuration, will I be "behind the times" as far
a technology goes? Is there a compelling reason to consider the RAID
performance, where data recover may be more challenging if there's a
problem?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with being "Behind the times".

The decision to implement RAID is based on need, not desire to have
something. RAID is OLD, only the electronics have changed.

If you like to tinker, then RAID can be fun to setup, but once you have
it running and working properly you only monitor it to look for
impending fault conditions or to restore it.

I suggest that you do a basic install, then remove one drive, then
insert a new drive and see what it takes to recover before you dedicate
your computer to a RAID solution.
 
RAID 0 splits the system on two physical hard drives. If one fails, you
have nothing.
RAID 1 backs up the first hard drive to the second one.

In RAID 1, if the first hard drive shows signs of failing, not holding all
the data, the same thing will be mirrored to the second hard drive.

If you backup your own data to another location, none of this matters.

If you want the latest technology for its own sake, do so. But don't use
that for an excuse to change your habits or to rely on the technology to
replace what you're already doing. As it doesn't as you imply.
.............
Jonny
 
Leythos said:
Ask yourself this - do you really know what RAID is and what it can do
for you. Since most home users have problems of one type or another,
RAID-0 can often be a problem... If you have a hardware fault, a drive
failure, etc.. you can lose it all.
Click to expand...



Although that's true, the same is true if you don't have RAID 0. The way to
protect your self against hardware faults and drive failures is
backup--whether you use RAID 0 or not.
Click to expand...
 
Leythos said:
Although that's true, the same is true if you don't have RAID 0. The way to
protect your self against hardware faults and drive failures is
backup--whether you use RAID 0 or not.
Click to expand...

Why did you snip this part - I clearly said the same thing in the part
you snipped:
Click to expand...
 
Leythos said:
Why did you snip this part - I clearly said the same thing in the part
you snipped:
Click to expand...


I don't think you said the same thing at all. You selectively snipped from
the paragraph that I snipped entirely. The paragraph read in full

"RAID-1, provides read speed, but not write speed, it also acts to
provide a redundant drive in case one of them fails - do not confuse
this with a backup or the need to not backup."

You are talking about RAID 1 in that paragrpah. My comment was entirely
about RAID 0, and has nothing to do with RAID 1. I snipped the paragraph
because it was irrelevant to my reply.
Click to expand...
 
Jonny said:
RAID 0 splits the system on two physical hard drives.
Click to expand...


Two *or more* physical drives.

If one fails,
you have nothing.
RAID 1 backs up the first hard drive to the second one.
Click to expand...


No, it *mirrors* the drive. Do not confuse mirroring with backup.
Mirroring is *not* suitable for using as backup. Mirroring is a technique
used for a situation in which downtime can't be tolerated. If, for example,
you're running an airline reservation system, you don't have time to restore
backups; the customer goes elsewhere while you restore. Raid 0 creates a
mirrored drive and lets the computer automatically and seamlessly change to
using the mirror drive if the primary one fails. When you mirror, you still
need a separate backup, because relying on a mirror leaves you vulnerable to
most of the common dangers to your drive(s), such
as severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even
theft of the computer.

Secure backup needs to be on media stored externally to the computer. For
really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of your business
depends on your data) there should be multiple copies of the media, with at
least one copy stored off-site.



In RAID 1, if the first hard drive shows signs of failing, not
holding all the data, the same thing will be mirrored to the second
hard drive.
If you backup your own data to another location, none of this matters.
Click to expand...


Yes it does. See above. Backup is normally needeed even if you mirror.
 
I'm using two 250GB serial 150 drives in RAID 0 and can tell you it is fast.
I keep backups to another drive so I'm not too worried about corrupt data.
Do it like me and have two drives in RAID 0 and a third drive for backups
nad you are protected agains most things.

Glen P
 
Thank you all for your thoughts. I love the discussions that come up.

I did want to at least consider the newer technology. After input from this
group and an inquiry to Seagate I've decided that if I don't have a need for
it, I can leave the RAID setup alone. I began questioning the subject when
Micron (MPC) told me that I could not get a Millennia desktop that was NOT
RAID. (I would have to go to their ClientPro, which offered way less in
options.) As it turns out, their "Professional" Millennia is offered in
non-RAID, and this will probably be my choice. My main priority is
reliability. I'll get my own increase in speed by going from a 733MHz to a
3.2G! It's amazing how tempting it can be to unnecessarily complicate my
computing experience just for the knowledge that I have the latest
technology.

Thanks,
Ellen Hall
 
Mirrors, backs up like a clone. Excuse the verbage mistake. Otherwise was
correct.

And if the first hard drive starts having data problems, the same will be
***MIRRORED*** on the second hard drive in a RAID 1 configuration.

One still is responsible for their own backup, irregardless. Are you
disagreeing with this statement as well?
.............
Jonny
 
Jonny said:
Mirrors, backs up like a clone. Excuse the verbage mistake. Otherwise was
correct.
Click to expand...


The difference between mirroring and backing up is not simply a matter of
verbiage. They are very different, and calling a mirror a "backup" implies,
incorrectly, that backup isn't required if you mirror.


And if the first hard drive starts having data problems, the same
will be ***MIRRORED*** on the second hard drive in a RAID 1
configuration.

Yes.


One still is responsible for their own backup, irregardless. Are you
disagreeing with this statement as well?
Click to expand...


Absolutely not. That is exactly the point I wanted to stress. As I said, the
problem with calling mirroring a backup is the implication that no other
backup is required.
 
Ellen Hall said:
Thank you all for your thoughts. I love the discussions that come up.

I did want to at least consider the newer technology. After input from
this
group and an inquiry to Seagate I've decided that if I don't have a need
for
it, I can leave the RAID setup alone. I began questioning the subject
when
Micron (MPC) told me that I could not get a Millennia desktop that was NOT
RAID. (I would have to go to their ClientPro, which offered way less in
options.) As it turns out, their "Professional" Millennia is offered in
non-RAID, and this will probably be my choice. My main priority is
reliability. I'll get my own increase in speed by going from a 733MHz to
a
3.2G! It's amazing how tempting it can be to unnecessarily complicate my
computing experience just for the knowledge that I have the latest
technology.

Thanks,
Ellen Hall
Click to expand...


Along with the RAID 1 offering, they also provide a ghost (image) backup
system to a hidden partition. This isn't a bad idea at all. Especially if
you could get without the RAID.
 
Thanks, I'll take a look at that.


Jonny said:
Along with the RAID 1 offering, they also provide a ghost (image) backup
system to a hidden partition. This isn't a bad idea at all. Especially if
you could get without the RAID.
Click to expand...
 
well, i wont disagree with the intent of the statement, but i will point out
that "irregardless" is not a word. its just "regardless"

:
 
as long as that third drive is external, and not stored in the same room as
the raid computer, and ideally, not in the same building. hard to beat dvds
in a safe deposit box for critical backups, and for convienience, an external
hard drive stored in a firesafe would be ok.
 
Tinman77865 said:
well, i wont disagree with the intent of the statement, but i will
point out that "irregardless" is not a word. its just "regardless"
Click to expand...


It's very strange to see someone who doesn't start sentences with a capital
letter, doesn't capitalize the pronoun "I," and who doesn't spell "won't"
and "it's" properly correcting other people's use of English.
 
Back
Top