All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
RAID 1 / RAID 0 / RAID 10
Wondering --?
At any point correct me if i'm wrong
Raid 1 - copy the same data across 2 hard drives.
Raid 0 - Blocks striped.
Raid 10 - Both Raid1+Raid0 combined.
Main confusion is about Raid 1
But it is at the end down to luck so why even go for raid 1 since you never knew when your 2 drives could fail. So is there a point in using your second disk as a copy. what i mean is if you were to use raid1 it will be 2 x 1 TB so your tech. losing out on 1 TB of space right? and at any point both could fail anyways.
So what i'm trying to get at
Why not just configure raid0 and then do backups on your own?
Is this a viable option for hosts? / forums / whatever else.
Of course if you can pay for the 4x1 TB raid 10 then by all means go for it.
What do you guys think?
Comments
RAID0 is not a usable level for hosting or any level of production except where data loss doesn't matter.
RAID can't be an alternative for backups. Lets say you put drives in RAID-0, one of your drive failed then you'll have to spend a huge time for replacing hdd, installing OS, then have to restore backup from offsite.
Same is of RAID-1 is lets say one failed, you simply have to replace disk, clone data & you'll be good.
If you need more safe RAID, then consider RAID-5.
Oh alright, i see what you mean thanks man!
RAID-5 is also terrible. Many times you'll find if one drive fails you replace it and another drive will fail during the rebuild.
I'll explain this in terms of probability of failure, using an example with 2 disks.
Let's assume the probability of a hard drive working correctly is 99%, in other words, probability of a hard drive failing is 0.01
This means, in a RAID-1 config, the probability of the entire system working correctly is
As you can see, the reliability of a RAID-1 system is higher than the reliability of any individual drive because (0.9999 > 0.99).
In RAID-0, the reliability of the system is
This shows that the reliability of a RAID-0 system is less than a single drive.
If you want to go with a RAID-0 config + 1 drive for backup, the reliability is
This shows that RAID-0 + 1 drive backup is less reliable than RAID-1. Not to mention the extra cost of the backup server, the time it'll take to copy the backup to RAID-0 when RAID-0 fails or the backup fails, etc.
From a performance perspective, RAID-0 is faster at writes (about twice as fast), but reads are the same speed for RAID-0 and RAID-1. However, depending on how often you backup to your other server, you'll suffer on the read performance in RAID-0.
I'd like to add that RAID != backups. Understand the difference.
That's not a RAID 5 problem, that's a hardware or environment problem. If your drives are failing that often, you'll have problems with other types of RAID as well.
@Black using S1 :P
S1?
People don't know that they should buy different drives AND drive charges of one or two HDD manufacturers.
Ofcourse different drives only per raid group...
Combining drives in a raid is a terrible idea. Not even within the same lot speeds are the same and at times can vary quite a lot. You can, of course, mix and match at home for your back-up server, i have made many times weird combinations of different sized disks using volumes for raid 6, for example, making sure no drive failing will lead to dataloss, however, in a production environment, you do need speed and data safety. A mix of drives will slow down to the slowest one in the best case scenario, at times can go much slower due to various factors or you can get even data corruption, depending on card and how it does things.
If you must do raid 5, do it with a spare. Raid 6 is better if you have many drives. If only 4 (minimum for a serious raid IMO, go with raid 10.
Raid0 is faster than Raid1
Ah nevermind haha @black i was talking about stats 1 which you learn in a-levels
Continuing the question of OP, if your server has two drives, instead of raid 1, go for incremental backup on second disk depending upon the type of data you have.. that way , out of two, second disk will be used far lesser and hence lesser chance to crash than disk 1. Be it raid 1 or no raid, write and read speed will be same..