# RAID setup



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

Hey Guys,

What are the advantages to doing a RAID setup on a home computer?


----------



## xfire (Mar 3, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

Read that already.  It looks to me like it is mostly for servers and enterprise stuff.  I am wondering why people do it for home.


----------



## xfire (Mar 3, 2008)

You have to be more specific at home. Gamers use it because its faster(RAID 0). RAID 1 mirrors the first hard disk thereby creating a backup. It all depends on your requirements.


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

So RAID 0 is faster than a single hard drive?


----------



## ktr (Mar 3, 2008)

cincybengal said:


> So RAID 0 is faster than a single hard drive?



Raid 0 interleaves data between two or more hard drives, and in result is faster than a single hard drive, but if one hard drive goes bad...all data is lost.


----------



## xfire (Mar 3, 2008)

think of it like your SLI/crossfire setup a part of the work is done by one hard disk the other part is done by the other hard disk


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 3, 2008)

On desktop machines most people speak of RAID 0, which isn't actually RAID. However a comparison here with SLI/Xfire is perhaps a decent one. Do note that RAID 0 adds risk of losing data. The array could fail or a drive could die destroying all data on both disks.

Actual RAID levels are there to offer data security and additionally increase performance slightly. With 2 disks your only option is RAID 1, which basically just mirrors data, ie saves it to 2 disks. One drive could fail and all data is safe. This is not the same as a backup though, mirroring is done real time. ie if you get a virus it is on both disks. If you erased your pr0n collection you do so on both disks.


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

So with the low cost of usb drives, would you say that using RAID for a backup just isn't necessary.  It looks like it has about as many strong positives as negatives.  And if you are looking for a speed boost, probably more for power gamers than typical users.  Would a higher rpm drive be faster than lower rpm drives on RAID?

By the way, these responses more in layman's terms are definitely easier to understand than tech jargon.  Thanks!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 3, 2008)

The speed boost is close to pointless for gamers, the difference in load times doesn't matter that much. FPS doesn't change at all. higher RPM drivers offer lower latencies which could be a better choice in some circumstances. Then again you can make an array from those as well.

As for USB drives, they're completely unrelated. Like I said, RAID is NOT a backup.


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

So you don't use it to back up data per se, but to have a mirror of an entire drive so that if one fails, it doesn't effect all of your programs, etc. You just stick in a new drive and it makes a new mirror.  I guess the theory is both shouldn't fail at the same time.  

If you were to use 2 400gb hdd's, then you would have 400gb of usable storage.


----------



## ktr (Mar 3, 2008)

Yea...

If you were to RAID 1 (aka Mirror) two 400gb, the total usable size will be 400gb. 
If you were to RAID 0 (aka Striping) two 400gb, the total usable size will be 800gb.


----------



## xfire (Mar 3, 2008)

yes 400Gb if put in RAID 1 if put in RAID 0 it gives 800Gb.
Are you debating with yourself to set up RAID or not?
edit:- ktr beat me to it.


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

Yeah, I'm thinking about it.  More for mirror than speed.  I'm just trying to figure out if the benefit outweighs the cost.  Already have a 400gb hd, so I would need another one, but I have seen that some people have a non-RAID drive as well as RAID.

I do know it is very annoying when you lose your hdd.  Half the time I can't find the product keys or disks for old software, etc., so a full reinstall is a major pain.  I had been looking at it as a backup, which is clearly wrong.  Being able to just install a new drive if one fails sounds like a good deal.


----------



## twicksisted (Mar 3, 2008)

I am running four WD3200 RE16 drives in raid 0...  got 1.2 terrabytes of storage...
Theoretically its 4 times faster than a regular drive..

To be honest I cant actually tell the difference between it and a normal drive...


----------



## AsRock (Mar 3, 2008)

Best one is Raid 5 i think which gives you the speed of raid 0 maybe a little more with out the thought of losing all your data.


----------



## xfire (Mar 3, 2008)

If you need to do raid then you will have to reinstall windows with RAID drivers installed during the installation. If re-installation is a pain then try creating an unattended windows CD(it automatically does every thing for you. You have to make one yourself). As for back-up there are many backup software


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

The RAID drivers may already be there.  I installed everything on mobo disk so when pc boots up it looks for RAID


----------



## AsRock (Mar 3, 2008)

cincybengal said:


> The RAID drivers may already be there.  I installed everything on mobo disk so when pc boots up it looks for RAID




And if there not use nLite and add them .


----------



## Chryonn (Mar 3, 2008)

Personally i don't see the point of striping (two or more drives to make one big partition).  you can buy individual massive-size disks anyway. i avoid striping for the same reasons as has been said on here - the potential data loss should one drive die


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 3, 2008)

twicksisted said:


> I am running four WD3200 RE16 drives in raid 0...  got 1.2 terrabytes of storage...
> Theoretically its 4 times faster than a regular drive..
> 
> To be honest I cant actually tell the difference between it and a normal drive...



Quite a risk you're taking for something that doesn't benefit you.


----------



## cincybengal (Mar 3, 2008)

Is hdd failure a higher risk with a RAID setup?


----------



## oily_17 (Mar 3, 2008)

cincybengal said:


> I had been looking at it as a backup, which is clearly wrong.  Being able to just install a new drive if one fails sounds like a good deal.



If you are just looking to back up your data in case a HDD fails you could try the like of Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost which will create an image of your entire HDD.Then if your disk fails you can use it to reinstall on your new drive.
Just make sure you save the image to another drive from the one you are imaging.


----------



## MKmods (Mar 3, 2008)

cincybengal said:


> Is hdd failure a higher risk with a RAID setup?


technically yes, the more Hdds you add the more chance one will fail.

I use raid0 on all my comps and have never had 1 fail, I keep them cool and clean.

I like to Raid0 smaller drives(like 80s) and use a large one for backup and files.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 4, 2008)

Maybe this can help you. 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=43572&highlight=Raid+arrays

I really would like that moved to the storage section since it did not exist before and vote for a sticky!


----------



## twicksisted (Mar 4, 2008)

AsRock said:


> Best one is Raid 5 i think which gives you the speed of raid 0 maybe a little more with out the thought of losing all your data.



Raid 5 has redundancy and speed, but you can still screw up the drives in such a way that data recovery is impossible and the speed is less than raid 0...

also, it takes a very long time to build a raid 5 array

Id say , if you have 4 drives... raid 10 is much better ( raid 1+0) you get the speed of raid 0 and the redundancy of raid1. (you'd need 4 drives minimum to do this... eg: four 100gig drives will give you a 200gig disk)


----------



## ktr (Mar 4, 2008)

cincybengal said:


> Is hdd failure a higher risk with a RAID setup?



A raid setup has the same failing risk as a single hard drive. But if you are doing RAID 0, if one hdd goes bad, all data is lost. In raid 1, if one hdd goes bad, you still have the second to back you up.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 4, 2008)

twicksisted said:


> Raid 5 has redundancy and speed, but you can still screw up the drives in such a way that data recovery is impossible and the speed is less than raid 0...
> 
> also, it takes a very long time to build a raid 5 array
> 
> Id say , if you have 4 drives... raid 10 is much better ( raid 1+0) you get the speed of raid 0 and the redundancy of raid1. (you'd need 4 drives minimum to do this... eg: four 100gig drives will give you a 200gig disk)




Yes but if your HDD fails you lose all for sure ( Unless you pay), If a raid 0 fails same again BUT if a raid 5 fails at least you have a chance.. And in my case only apps and games are on mine and with most games and apps save to the C: drive which is not part of my raid.  BUT if that single drive fails i be screwed..


----------

