Re: Is RAID 1 enough?

Sternkreuzer wrote:
I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building,
with XP Pro.

Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one
needs to do the <F6> tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning
of the installation of XP Pro.

I like the RAID 1 concept, but what happens if the motherboard
fails? Is there a danger of losing all the data on the mirrored
disks after replacing the motherboard? It seems one would have to
go through the <F6> procedure again so the motherboard accepts a
RAID configuration. Does that force a Clean Install?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
A combination of any true raid (RAID0 is merely striping - JBOD)
with consistent scheduled external backups is the best assurance
against data loss and long rebuild times.

I don't like RAID1 because it only gives protection against
catastrophic *instant* failure of the first hard disk drive. If
your computer gets messed up in the way computers normally do
(software/human intervention) - that probably got replicated to the
second drive and thus - you still lost anything not backed up
externally. ;-)

Sternkreuzer wrote:
What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was
reading about recently at

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm

That seems to try to address the concerns you mentioned...

It does not address my concern(s) at all.

The "Matrix Storage Technology" is nothing new. 2004/2005ish?

In any case - RAID1 is still mirroring from one set of storage to another -
and in the case of hardware RAID1 (BTW - *I* would never recommend any
software RAID solution to anyone for any reason) it is usually instantaneous
mirroring.

If you have something mess up on the first storage device non-hardware
related (or even hardware where it scrambles a few files and is not
catastrophic and instant total failure) - it will replicate to the other
storage device and you have no good backups *if* that was your only solution
for such.

- Performance-wise - there is *no* benefit to RAID1 for the home consumer.
- Price-wise - you are losing money because you spent twice as much money on
something that gives you potentially nothing in return by itself.

Look into RAID5 further. Redundancy and continued functionality even during
a minor failure make it still the 'king' of RAID arrays for many people.
Yes - you cannot just have two disks - you have to have a minumum of three
and the hardware capable of doing a RAID5. However - with RAID5 - if you
lose any single disk - you continue to run and usually can *make* the time
available to you to replace the bad disk and continue working.

*However* - it has to be pointed out again - RAID is not a backup solution.
It is a redundancy (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) solution - it
keeps you up and going for as much time as is feasibly possible - even
during single drive failures.

Consistent and scheduled backups to external media is still necessary if you
want a complete 'disaster recovery' type solution.

Performance-wise, there is a slight benefit to RAID0 (not true RAID in my
opinion) and RAID5, as you spread the load across more spindles. To be
quite honest though - most home users (even those hobbiest video editors,
music producers, etc) will never see the actual performance gain over just a
single large modern hard disk drive.

Some of the other (lesser known/lesser used) RAIDs have benefits and
disadvantages (as you would expect) - but none can I recommend as highly as
RAID5 for overall reliability and redundancy-type protection. (Although
someone doing serious video recording/video streaming might benefit from
RAID3...)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hows RAID doing?
    ... My take is that redundancy and ... The advantage of using RAID here is that when a disk fails, ... > out hard drives before they fail. ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: How can I recover my RAID Disks? Urgently need help!
    ... I have installed 4 SATA hardisks and run a RAID 0+1 disk ... My broken motherboard is old version. ... motherboard with built-in RAID controller ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • Re: Number of Spindles Exchange + SQL
    ... Never seen Multiple disk failures? ... When a disk fails RAID 5 is horrible. ... If you want performant redundancy under all conditions RAID 1 ... Break a mirror, install SPX or new app Y if all is well ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: sata installation of windowsxp pro?
    ... Is the SATA on a RAID controller? ... you need to build a RAID arary. ... Well, neither did I, but depending on the motherboard, you may ... a RAID array containing only one disk. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Is reiserfs slower to mount / on bootup?
    ... >> a correct contents of the volume in presence of a single failing disk? ... >> of security afforded by raid technology has been overstated, ... and all that redundancy didn't protect you. ... the reiser guys and the MD device hackers. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)