| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 104132 | 2009-10-17 19:34:00 | RAID Arrays | bk T (215) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 821438 | 2009-10-17 19:34:00 | Is it really worthwhile to create a RAID array which some people think that will improve performance? Will a RAID array make the system run faster? Rather than spending money on getting more HDDs, why not invest in other items like more (or bettre) RAM, faster CPU, etc. What do your opinion? |
bk T (215) | ||
| 821439 | 2009-10-17 20:02:00 | Well it really depends what you're after. The type of RAID you use depends on what you're trying to achieve for your data. Do you want performance or redundancy or fault tolerance? RAID 0 is usually used for increased read performance across multiple disks but had no fault tolerance RAID 1 is usually used where you need some fault tolerance in your disk structure, the array will continue to work as long as one of the disks is fully functional. There is a slight hit in write performance when using RAID1 RAID 5 used for disk structure where you need redunancy... requires at least 3 disks... if one drive fails the array will not be destoryed and will be rebuilt once the faulty disk has been replaced. The new disk will have the data rebuilt to it from the parity data on the other disks in the array. YOu can also use combinations of RAID such as RAID 0+1, commonly used for disks which hold databases. This is because 0+1 offers better performance for databases because of how the data is store in blocks in databases. This increased the databse performance. I have a Win Server 2K3 box here, using RAID 1 for C-drive and 8 disks in a RAID 5 configuration for all my data. Yes it is worthwhile to use RAID provided you need to keep you data intact... I wouldn't implement it for an everyday computer user but having said that everyone is different. I only use RAID on my server, my primary box just has 2 independant disks in it because all my other data is on the server. Hope that helps. |
chiefnz (545) | ||
| 821440 | 2009-10-17 20:29:00 | Thanks for your reply, chiefnz. I brought up this subject because we're discussing this last night with a friend who is about to get his new PC built; and he is looking at have a RAID array to improve performance. He is considering a RAID 1 array. I don't really think that it is necessary to spend money on getting more HDDs and the performance gain shouldn't be too great. Or, maybe getting a fast HDD will be more appropriate. |
bk T (215) | ||
| 821441 | 2009-10-17 21:49:00 | Thanks for your reply, chiefnz. I brought up this subject because we're discussing this last night with a friend who is about to get his new PC built; and he is looking at have a RAID array to improve performance. He is considering a RAID 1 array. I don't really think that it is necessary to spend money on getting more HDDs and the performance gain shouldn't be too great. Or, maybe getting a fast HDD will be more appropriate. I think the best option for your friend would be two separate drives; a fast WD Velociraptor for his boot disk, which has only the O/S and his apps and then a single drive for his data, or a pair in RAID 1 (mirrored). Really, RAID just adds another layer of complexity that is generally not needed at home level. |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 821442 | 2009-10-17 22:19:00 | Thanks for your reply, chiefnz. I brought up this subject because we're discussing this last night with a friend who is about to get his new PC built; and he is looking at have a RAID array to improve performance. He is considering a RAID 1 array. I don't really think that it is necessary to spend money on getting more HDDs and the performance gain shouldn't be too great. Or, maybe getting a fast HDD will be more appropriate. RAID1 won't increase performance - it's for redundancy rather than speed. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 821443 | 2009-10-18 01:10:00 | RAID1 won't increase performance - it's for redundancy rather than speed. Yea, if you want speed get RAID 0 But from what I've read, RAID 0 doesn't give the typical home user enough of a performance increase to be worth it.. |
Blam (54) | ||
| 821444 | 2009-10-18 04:23:00 | Thanks folks for the inputs. | bk T (215) | ||
| 821445 | 2009-10-18 19:18:00 | I'd only bother with RAID on a home PC if you're running apps or games that have VERY high file I/O requirements, or you need the redundancy on offer over and above a traditional backup method. | inphinity (7274) | ||
| 821446 | 2009-10-18 22:29:00 | RAID 0 on SSD drives and you should notice a slight speed increase ;) | nmercer (3899) | ||
| 821447 | 2009-10-18 23:28:00 | RAID 0 on SSD drives and you should notice a slight speed increase ;) Well, getting 2 x SSD drives is not worthwhile for just a 'slight' speed increase. |
bk T (215) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||