How many of you are using a RAID1 drive setup?

[FloydV]

RAID1 is simply two discs that mirror each other. When one drive dies, you get a message, and then you replace the dead drive (either 0 or 1). The good disc then rebuilds the new disc you put in, and you never stop functioning.

I got that message today, and for $80, I replaced a dead 160 GB drive. The firmware driven RAID driver simply rebuilt the new disc into a replica of the surviving disc, and I was interrupted only by the amount of time it took me to power down and put in a new disc. It was much better than getting a black screen with "No bootable media found."

Going further, I actually bought two new 160 GB drives figuring that if one was dead the other didn't have that much longer to go. So, after the system rebuilt one disc, I pulled out the good disc and replaced it with a new one. The system rebuilt that one, and I now have a backup sitting on a shelf in case the files get corrupted on one and mirrored to the other. I think I've got all my bases covered, but ya never know.

 

[WWJD]

I've pondered it, but instead, I just don't keep that much important stuff on a computers. My systems get rebuilt every 6 months anyway, and I back up to DVD and external drives religiously. Computers are my career, but at home, excessive geekiness is simply uneeded complexity I'm happier without. RAIDs are fine systems though, nothing against it.

 

[Vic_E55_2001]

5 years old Compaq Proliant 5500 server in my basement running 7 Ultra SCSI drives. Not a single drive failure in 5 years.

All y files stored on this server. I`m running thin clients around a house and my favorite ThinkPad T61p with Wireless broadband for everything else.

Almost forgot, Media Center running on Dell Optiplex 755 as my entertainment machine.

All of that powered by 5000 Series Smart UPS.

You don`t want to know how much my electric bill is.

 

[GIXERHP]

After having 2 drives fail in 2 years, i rebuilt my computer to raid1 !

 

[Mr Bogus]

raid 1 is ok but it is by far the most wasteful of disk space.. (only option for most home pc's but certainly worth the disk usage)

upside is that disk space is cheap now days.. I run raid5 on everything (hardware raid)

 

[thrasherfox]

I am running RAID5 on one of my servers, it has 14 drives.

13 drives are used for data and parity information, the 14th drive is an online backup

If a drive fails it automatically turns on the online back up and rebuilds the information onto that drive.

The failed drive will then have a red light on it. if I see that and see the spare drive is solid green I just pull the failed drive out and pop in a new one (I have 45 spare drives in cages sitting in a safe).

After I pop the new one in the system automatically rebuilds the new drive from the data on the online spare, once it is finished my online spare turns off and waits for the next failure.

zero down time..

I also have nightly tape backups and nightly backup to folders running (the backup folder resides on a different system and is backed up across the wire)

I have had bad experiences with faulty backups. I totally believe in redundancy now

So basically I have three levels of data backups - RAID5, Tape, backup folder

However I still prefer disc duplexing over RAID1.

I think typically RAID1 is just mirroring which is 2 drives on the same controller card.

with one controller card writing to two drives, it can impact data access speeds (probably not noticeable though in most cases)

with duplexing you have two separate controller cards and a drive connected to each.

with data read or writes are requested the controller card that is less busy handles the request and the data is copied to the other drive in the background.

This usually results in faster data access (reading and writing) and provides an additional level of fault tolerance to the controller card level.

If it were not for my system having an online spare and I can hot swap drives without taking the system down, I think I would prefer a duplexed system over a RAID5 configuration that didn’t have hot swappable drives.

Then you also have RAID6 (which I really don’t care for) and RAID7 which is I believe a proprietary RAID system http://www.firstsol.com/raid7.html


Errrrr just my .02

 

[Professor]

I run RAID1 on my OS Drives in my servers. RAID5 on a seperate controller with a spare in the slot on standby for the data. If one of the RAID5 array fails it rebuilds to the spare.

On my desktop/workstation I run 4 sata drives in a 1-0 configuration. There are two mirrored sets of two drives. Then the two set are striped in a RAID0. This way I have failure prevention and some speed advantages. I built it a few years ago when the 160s were about the largest drive you could get. I've had one drive failure with it without any issues at all.

 

[WWJD]

are you guys talking about raid servers at HOME or at WORK? are you guys LIFE-NERDS or what? I thought the OP meant at home

 

[thrasherfox]

are you guys talking about raid servers at HOME or at WORK? are you guys LIFE-NERDS or what? I thought the OP meant at home

At home of course?

I wouldnt run such a primitive system as I described above on my work systems.


Naw for work systems you need either a Quantum Computer, Biochemical nanocomputers or a Quantum nanocomputer

http://www.geeks.com/techtips/2006/techtips-26nov06.htm

http://metabraingrowthprocess.tribe.net/thread/1e5f7ca4-2a5f-4de3-9f05-e951c23b8be2

http://www.technologyawards.org/computer_technology/Computer_technology_history.html




These systems require a "differant" kind of "backup" process.

 

[Professor]

are you guys talking about raid servers at HOME or at WORK? are you guys LIFE-NERDS or what? I thought the OP meant at home

On my desktop/workstation I run 4 sata drives in a 1-0 configuration. There are two mirrored sets of two drives. Then the two set are striped in a RAID0. This way I have failure prevention and some speed advantages. I built it a few years ago when the 160s were about the largest drive you could get. I've had one drive failure with it without any issues at all.

This one is my home unit and a bit dated as Thrasher says!

 

[Mr Bogus]

I do a lot of "in home" service and I have yet to see any home user with a RAID5 setup.. just not $$$ practical for the home user (controller cards cost more than most home PC's now)

I can install an brand new IBM Lenovo Think center with dual core cpu with 22" monitor and Vista Home Premium for around $500 (K210 Mdl 57076522) really I think the most "practical" are the external "book drives" that are a simple hdd housing connected via fire wire and it runs second copy nightly to backup critical files.. it is a $100 solution that works just fine... Most home users have retail purchased machines with full restore ability anyway.. all you need is the "extras" backed up for most practical purposes..

 

[BowDown]

Get the best of both worlds.. run a RAID10.

With the cost of drives now days, it just makes sense... That way you get the extra transfer speed of a RAID0, and you get the mirroring of a RAID1.

Works great!

 

[Vic_E55_2001]

are you guys talking about raid servers at HOME or at WORK? are you guys LIFE-NERDS or what? I thought the OP meant at home

Home. Work is completely different story.

 

[Vic_E55_2001]

I do a lot of "in home" service and I have yet to see any home user with a RAID5 setup.. just not $$$ practical for the home user (controller cards cost more than most home PC's now)

I can install an brand new IBM Lenovo Think center with dual core cpu with 22" monitor and Vista Home Premium for around $500 (K210 Mdl 57076522) really I think the most "practical" are the external "book drives" that are a simple hdd housing connected via fire wire and it runs second copy nightly to backup critical files.. it is a $100 solution that works just fine... Most home users have retail purchased machines with full restore ability anyway.. all you need is the "extras" backed up for most practical purposes..

+1. External drives is the answer for home users. DVD backups once in a few month.

 

[dinoap]

Gigabyte GA-X48T-DG6 Mobo
6 500 GB data Raid
2 160 GB OS Raid

All at home

 

[Blazing-Saddle]

I use a SCSI RAID 0+1 because of the work I do; I get speed as well as redundancy...

 

[Mr Bogus]

Get the best of both worlds.. run a RAID10.

With the cost of drives now days, it just makes sense... That way you get the extra transfer speed of a RAID0, and you get the mirroring of a RAID1.

Works great!

I think you are confusing this with RAID0+1 with RAID10? both are highly expensive for results... with RAID0+1 you get mirroring and stripping but a single drive failure takes your array to RAID0

Raid10 typically requires an interface card and is cost prohibitive at both the disk and controller levels... but is tolerant of multiple drive failures etc..

I have never used RAID10 in any application but it does have some neat features after you get past the costs..


Here is a good site for RAID classifications..
http://bytepile.com/raid_class.php