Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,556
    Rep Power
    0

    which RAID is better

    well, got just 1 question, which RAID is better is performance?
    RAID 0, 1 or 5?

    cuz now i have 10 harddrives and i am building a NAS Server so i can put a few harddrives in that thingy :P
    so that leaves me with open holes to fill them with new drives in RAID :P
    (SSD's are no option for me)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    16,661
    Rep Power
    0
    Raid 0 is the fastest.

    But there is a catch, if one of the disks gets messed up, you'll lose everything on both disk!

    Since you're building a server, i would go with RAID 1.

    Code:
    RAID 0 - Data distributed on two hard drives, so if we assume that you have two hard drives which are just fast, the speed will be doubled if you run two in RAID0, rather than running them normally. 
    
    The risk of losing data is also twice as high as everything is lost if one disk goes. 
    
    RAID 1 - All bits are on both hard drives. The most secure solution, but speed is the same as if they do not run with RAID. 
    
    RAID 0+1 (mirroring + ping industry) - Combining the two above, where data will not be written alternately on 2 discs and then mirrored on 2 other discs. Requires at least 4 disks, an even number of disks. 
    
    Reconstruction is a significant inconvenience stringent process than RAID 1+0, which also gives the same benefits, therefore it is recommended not to use RAID 0+1. 
    
    RAID 1+0 (mirroring + industrial ping) - Data become the mirror and then alternately scattered on multiple discs. Requires minimum 4 disks, an even number of disks. Is often used to give all redundancy and performance benefits of RAID 1 and a further gain better speed writing from RAID 0.
    
    RAID 2 - Data distributed on bit level or in very small blocks on multiple disks, and a "Hamming codes" are calculated and stored on one or more parity diskette. Requires at least 3 disks. 
    
    RAID 3 and RAID 4 (Not ping dedicated parity) - As RAID 0, but with a disk that is dedicated to, respectively parity bit (RAID 3), or parity block (RAID 4). Parity used for data restoration by the crash of a single disk. Requires minimum 3 disks. 
    
    RAID 5 - (Not ping with distributed parity) In RAID 4, but with distributed parity block. Again, the data can be recreated by failure of one disk. Requires minimum 2 disks to work, but typically 3 disks to have any relevance as compared to RAID level 1.
    
    RAID 6 - (Dual industrial ping distributed parity) As RAID 5, but with twice as many parity blocks. Here it is possible to restore data at the crash of two discs. requires minimum 4 disks. 
    Improving equal to 2 divided by the number of disks. 
    Performance: As a RAID level 5 minus one disc. 
    The most secure method used for servers and such as music studios, which lost data is a disaster.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14,114
    Rep Power
    0
    can someone post up a tut on how to set up a raid with windows 7? It has been a long time since I did a raid..

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,556
    Rep Power
    0
    so RAID5 with 3 drives is slower then RAID1 with 2 drives?
    also its my game pc that gets the RAID option, NAS stays on non-RAID

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    6,474
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by [T
    yphoon]so RAID5 with 3 drives is slower then RAID1 with 2 drives?
    also its my game pc that gets the RAID option, NAS stays on non-RAID
    I would actually prefer to use RAID 5 because of the data redundancy protection and the performance.

    Here's the main difference

    * Raid 1 - Does NOT provide disk level performance
    * Raid 5 - Does provide disk level performance.

    So if you have the additional hard-drives .. than RAID 5 is the better way to go in the long run for speed and protection.

    @ PaidCustomer = Here is a helpful link

    http://www.overclockers.com/setting-...ws-7-ultimate/

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,556
    Rep Power
    0
    ok, i already thought about RAID5, but i didnt know about the speed
    thx, i will buy 3 1TB Seagates @7.200rpm

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    16,661
    Rep Power
    0
    I would go all out with RAID 0.

    @PC some motherboard comes with raid drivers tool that assist you in the process of doing a RAID array.

    Let me know what MOBO you have and i'll be able to explain/guide you to raidness!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,556
    Rep Power
    0
    i've read on a website that a RAID5 can seriously slow down a system

    link: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/...eLevel5-c.html

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. RAID 0+1
    By jgrts201 in forum General PC Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-14-2010, 03:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •