Re: General RAID question

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Thanx, Jim - you are correct - brain cramp - I was referring to RAID 1 (
mirroring ). Currently running RAID 5 ( 3 - 9G drives/15G total). Daily tape
b/u. Probably going to upgrade the server and was looking at alternatives.
Of course, as the saying goes"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The R5 is
working fine, probably should just leave it as is.

Thanx again all,

Vic

"Jim" <null@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hdhMg.15797$o42.2563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<frodo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12g36iqu42jl31@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
raid 0 won't give a performance HIT, it will IMPROVE performance in most
disk intensive operations: booting/launching, defragging, searching,
virus/spyware scanning, backup, large file conversions. the boost in
other "everyday" things is not noticable (Word won't type faster!)

most raid 0 solutions today are built-in to the main chipset, and use a
combination of software (in the driver) and some hardware assist (in the
chipset); for the most part the "overhead" is more than made-up-for by
the
performance boost.

but remember, if one drive in the array fails then you loose it all. so
backup backup backup (good advice for non-raid 0 too!).

I think the OP screwed up a bit here. He referred to RAID0 as mirroring.
RAID0 is *striping*, RAID1 is *mirroring*. I assume the OP actually meant
mirroring.

The whole purpose of RAID0 is to increase performance, so everything
stated
in this post above is correct, including the cautionary notes, for
striping.

However, since I believe the OP was actually referring to mirroring, the
situation is slightly different. The performance hit for hardware
mirroring
is negligible. There's also so much file buffering taking place and
delayed
writes, it would be very difficult to even measure the differences unless
you disabled these functions (which most software performance tools would
do, such as SiSoftware Sandra). In fact, your read performance may
increase
slightly since it's theoretically possible for the raid controller to read
BOTH HDs in parallel to retrieve a file. Most people use mirroring to
protect data (as opposed to OS files), which is typically read far more
often than written. So for most cases, there just isn't much need to
worry
about performance hits when it comes to hardware RAID.

Of course, if you're referring to software RAID, the situation may be far
different since there is no hardware assist.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Installing on RAID1
    ... > Not being particularly experienced with RAID configurations, ... Typically you would set up RAID at the ... AFAIK the alternative method of mirroring (device ... No hardware required - doing it in software is not a noticable overhead vs ...
    (uk.comp.os.linux)
  • Re: General RAID question
    ... virus/spyware scanning, backup, large file conversions. ... He referred to RAID0 as mirroring. ... The performance hit for hardware mirroring ... slightly since it's theoretically possible for the raid controller to read ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: Dying Disks on Mirrored Win 2003
    ... I don't think the RAID or how it is done has anything to do with the failure ... The drives are failing just simply because the drives ... Everytime I open my mouth about mirroring, people always pitch Hardware ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)
  • Re: Dying Disks on Mirrored Win 2003
    ... Everytime I open my mouth about mirroring, people always pitch Hardware ... RAID only on production servers - it is much more reliable, ... Hardware RAID has it's own share of problems. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)
  • Re: Installing Exchange for performance
    ... > Not sure what you mean by 4 pairs of mirrored RAID drives... ... > mirroring offers better performance because of sequential writes. ... >> needs partitions for the SMTP queues, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)