|
Video Editing/Gaming HDD Configuration
|
|
Member
|
7. August 2009 @ 17:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I currently have 2 1TB WD Caviar Black drives.
I just ordered 2 more from Newegg.
I want to set up my PC in the best performance/backup config.
What would be best?
I'm currently using one of these drives for my OS and another for storage.
Running Win7.
I will be using Adobe Premiere CS4.
Raid? 10? or 0 + 1?
I just don't know. I hate to lose 2TB of capacity but I want good protection.
What would you guys do?
Thanks so much.
Wayne
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
7. August 2009 @ 23:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
RAID-10 is raid 0+1 or raid 1+0, they all work basicly the same, and most controlers only offer one of them.
You might consider using two drives without raid and two in raid-1(mirror). Boot to one drive, use the second as a swap/temp drive, and use the raid-1 as redundant storage. This is probably the best performance you are going to get out of these drives without a hardware RAID card.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. August 2009 @ 23:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2009 @ 12:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think you can use RAID5 on four drives - that gives you single drive redundancy and only loses you one drive's space. Of course, not all RAID controllers support RAID5.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. August 2009 @ 00:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
I think you can use RAID5 on four drives - that gives you single drive redundancy and only loses you one drive's space. Of course, not all RAID controllers support RAID5.
RAID5 is slow for writes, about 1/5 the speed of reads, even on high end raid controlers. This makes it fine for storage, but terrible for high-write useage. Also, it is only to be used with high quality hardware controlers, as software controlers often "forget" the RAID5, and thus everything is unaccessable untill you go through a very complex recovery that requires several extra hard drives to copy the data to.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2009 @ 07:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
RAID5 is still likely to offer better write speeds than a single drive, as long as it's with a hardware RAID controller. Software RAID5 is slow as hell. Any other RAID system is really losing too much disk space for the sake of redundancy. RAID6 is of course better, but only really for 6 or more drives, else you're halving your capacity again.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. August 2009 @ 00:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
RAID5 is still likely to offer better write speeds than a single drive, as long as it's with a hardware RAID controller. Software RAID5 is slow as hell. Any other RAID system is really losing too much disk space for the sake of redundancy. RAID6 is of course better, but only really for 6 or more drives, else you're halving your capacity again.
The way RAID5 works requires a lot of reads in order to make any write. I have 3 1.5TB seagates connected to a nice 3ware hardware raid controler in RAID5 (gonna buy another drive vvvery soon). Sustained read speeds are over 200MBPS, but sustained write speeds are only about 50MBPS. Short writes are super-fast thanks to the raidcard's cache (64mb and smaller files "write" at DDR2 speeds).
These speeds might seem O.K., but you should remember that this is with a very nice hardware raid card. If you do not have hardware raid, your RAID5 speeds will be much, much slower. Also, software RAID5 is notorious for spontanious glitches that cannot be automaticly rebuilt.
If you have software raid and want speed (though not much more than single-drive speed), use RAID0. If you need reliability, use RAID1. If you need both, use RAID10. ...And if you want RAID5, buy a quality hardware raid adapter.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. August 2009 @ 06:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm pretty sure my friend's card has a hell of a lot more than 64MB of cache, though I might be wrong.
|
Member
|
27. August 2009 @ 14:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2009 @ 19:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
You don't have a RAID card, so you won't have any cache on it.
|
Member
|
27. August 2009 @ 19:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doesn't this board support RAID? It says in does. I would think it's hardware support not software.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2009 @ 20:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
All motherboard RAID is software RAID.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. August 2009 @ 22:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would advise against setting up a RAID5 array with that...if only on the basis that it would be extremely unreliable, and more dangerous to your data than using no RAID at all.
If you want protection with that controler, your options are a single RAID10 or a pair of RAID1 or a RAID1 store with a RAID0 temp...anything else will be at least as vulnrable as a non-RAID drive.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. August 2009 @ 06:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Onboard software RAID is just generally a bad idea.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. August 2009 @ 23:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Onboard software RAID is just generally a bad idea.
Onboard RAID-1 is perfectly safe; when it is broken, you have two identical copies of the same drive. Onboard RAID0 (or any RAID0) is just for speed (not peak speed, or faster seeks, just faster large file movement), and is always more than twice as likely to fail as a single drive. Onboard RAID10 is a bit iffy, but can always be rebuilt if it becomes broken (although you may need to use another computer to do the rebuild).
Personaly, I am not a big fan of laws that specify details of devices for sale...but I would still love to see a law that new computers would be required to have software raid-1 or hardware redundant raid...the cost of extra hardware would be outweighed by the lack of lost data.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. August 2009 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Even so, it's a performance issue for many machines, and not everyone insists on having RAID redundancy. I've seen onboard RAID1 cause hassle for several people when the RAID breaks all by itself.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. August 2009 @ 23:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Even so, it's a performance issue for many machines, and not everyone insists on having RAID redundancy. I've seen onboard RAID1 cause hassle for several people when the RAID breaks all by itself.
Perhapse, but RAID is more common on gaming machines than on office machines...that's not right.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. August 2009 @ 06:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't really see the point for office machines - all your work gets saved on your account profile usually, i.e. a massive dataserver, which will have RAID. Using RAID just to store the programs you use at work seems a bit silly.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. September 2009 @ 04:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
I don't really see the point for office machines - all your work gets saved on your account profile usually, i.e. a massive dataserver, which will have RAID. Using RAID just to store the programs you use at work seems a bit silly.
That works ok for large corporations, but most small businesses have no central server, they are just a few workstations wired together to the same internet connection...if there is even more than one computer. These days a lot of people are starting businesses using nothing more than a laptop (often a laptop with extra room for a second HDD, but no second HDD installed). Plus, an HDD crash means a blown day for most people (often more for smaller busineses)...even ignoring parts, labor, and data loss, it is still a huge loss to productivity.
Have you ever seen someone cry at their data loss? I have, it is heartbreaking to know that a nice (but somewhat ignorant) person may loose their business without the data that was just lost forever...a good business down the drane because Dell/HP/etc's decision to save $50...a decision the customer is never even offered.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. September 2009 @ 04:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. September 2009 @ 06:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
For small businesses I agree, but you should really back data up to an external drive if it's important.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
2. September 2009 @ 01:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
For small businesses I agree, but you should really back data up to an external drive if it's important.
...And you should save for retirement, and you should not smoke or drink (other than one glass of red wine per day), and you should, and you should, and you should...but people don't. Plus, most people think "it won't happen to me" - And they think it about everything from liver failure to cancer to data loss to ending up in a state-run nursing home.
|
