RAID 10 (0 + 1) or just RAID 0 ?

erebusting · 03-12-2009, 09:45 AM

I was going to setup a new system sometime soon and I was wondering, should I use raid 10 (thats 0 + 1 right? sorry if not, but I am reffering to 0 + 1) with say 4 500gb drives, or just go all raid 0 with 2 1tb drives (more space, but no backup)...
I do have an external 1tb drive I can use for backing up anything important...and I don't feel like I would mind having to reinstall windows and such as long as my data is somewhere safe....

but this is my first time attempting RAID so I was hoping for some advice? I heard raid 5 was recommended over 10 because it allows more disk space usage- but i noticed it does not perform as well as raid 0 + 1....is raid 0 reliable? also I was thinking maybe I could do raid 0 with 2x 1tb drives and back those up with a raid 1 2tb drive -is that possible, if yes is it a good idea?...

keep in mind -I do not want to get 4 1tb drives for raid 0+1 because I believe that would cost too much for me right now.....and I would like to get the best performance...maybe should I get like 6 300gb hdds ? and use raid 0 + 1 , about 900gb each array....

**Cromewell** · 03-12-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

....is raid 0 reliable?

Not as reliable as the drives you put in the array. If you have 2 identical drives in a RAID0 the chance of failure is 2x of one of the drives. RAID5 allows for failure, as does 0+1 and 1+0, but 5 needs less disk space to allow for failure.

RAID 10 is 2 mirrored arrays striped together and RAID 01 is to striped arrays mirrored. I know that sounds the same but the allowance for drive failure is different.

erebusting · 03-12-2009, 10:32 PM

Which would you recommend?...as I did mention before-I dont mind just using my external hdd to backup my main files so does that mean I should just use raid 0 and get the best performance/price ?...or is that too risky and should I just go with raid 0+1 or raid 5 (which would you recommend out of the two for 4 500gb hdds) ..?

**Cromewell** · 03-12-2009, 11:16 PM

If you want a RAID array I would recommend RAID5. It doesnt give the same potential boost as RAID0 but it does give a good boost in certain applications (same as RAID0, it's still a striped array afterall) and it is fault tolerant. The downside is you need at least 3 drives.

If you want a RAID 10 or 01, both perform very similarly when working normally but RAID 10 offers better fault tolerance and better rebuild speed should a drive fail.

erebusting · 03-13-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cromewell

If you want a RAID array I would recommend RAID5. It doesnt give the same potential boost as RAID0 but it does give a good boost in certain applications (same as RAID0, it's still a striped array afterall) and it is fault tolerant. The downside is you need at least 3 drives.

If you want a RAID 10 or 01, both perform very similarly when working normally but RAID 10 offers better fault tolerance and better rebuild speed should a drive fail.

hmm, or should I risk it and use raid 0? haha...I like the performance boost....but maybe raid 5 would be better for the fault protection....?hmm....maybe 3x750gb drives? or 640gbs ? ....also raid 5-say I have 3x500gb drives-then would I actually have 1tb of useable storage?...also say in raid 5 one drive fails -how can I restore my system? or would it already be fine automatically? or when I put a new drive in - would I have to set it up all over?

mac550 · 03-13-2009, 02:24 AM

you could use RAID 0 for your main drive (for windows and app) and then have a 3rd disk to keep all your data like pics and music, you still have RAID 0 but if one of the drives fail then you'll just replace to drive and install windows or linux and all your data wont be effected.

jevery · 03-13-2009, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erebusting

also say in raid 5 one drive fails -how can I restore my system? or would it already be fine automatically? or when I put a new drive in - would I have to set it up all over?

If a disk fails in a RAID 5 then the RAID will be “Degraded,” and continue to run, but throughput will be very reduced. If this happens you replace the bad disk and the array will rebuild automatically. Same with a failure in RAID 0 + 1 – Replace the drive and it rebuilds itself back to a normal state.

I never even considered a RAID 0 configuration as I’ve had too many single drive failures wipe out my entire system – I’m just not willing to double the chance of that happening. As has been suggested, I considered running a RAID 0 for the operating system plus a single drive for data storage, but that still leaves you without type of redundancy of either your OS or your data. Also a lot of files would be moved on and off of the data drive and thus the overall benefit of the RAID speed would be reduced.

I eventually settled on a 3 disk RAID 5 configuration for a while, but after comparing performance charts concluded that adding one more disk for a RAID 0 + 1 setup would vastly increase write performance for little additional cost.

Here’s benchmarks illustrating the difference between RAID 5 and 0+1 in sequential writes. Write Performance, Read Performance

erebusting · 03-13-2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac550

you could use RAID 0 for your main drive (for windows and app) and then have a 3rd disk to keep all your data like pics and music, you still have RAID 0 but if one of the drives fail then you'll just replace to drive and install windows or linux and all your data wont be effected.

by a '3rd' disk you mean like an extra disk not in any raid arrangement? ...
what would you guys recommened -space wise- ? and as for brands I was thinking of western digital....I like the idea of having a large array 0 drive ie: 1tb or so, but maybe if I just have 500gb (2x250gb drives) and use the 1tb for the storage ?...but I do kind of hate having to pull files off the extra drive and waiting for them to load onto the main drive....

jevery · 03-13-2009, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erebusting

by a '3rd' disk you mean like an extra disk not in any raid arrangement?

Not 3rd disk. "3-disk RAID 5". Striped RAID 0 will certainly boost performance, though double failure risk + no backup. Probably run fine for a long time, but will fail with total data loss at some point.

THERMAL-REACTOR · 03-13-2009, 05:13 AM

Whats your budget on storage and also how much space are you looking for?

03-12-2009, 09:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
erebusting Silver Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 193	RAID 10 (0 + 1) or just RAID 0 ? I was going to setup a new system sometime soon and I was wondering, should I use raid 10 (thats 0 + 1 right? sorry if not, but I am reffering to 0 + 1) with say 4 500gb drives, or just go all raid 0 with 2 1tb drives (more space, but no backup)... I do have an external 1tb drive I can use for backing up anything important...and I don't feel like I would mind having to reinstall windows and such as long as my data is somewhere safe.... but this is my first time attempting RAID so I was hoping for some advice? I heard raid 5 was recommended over 10 because it allows more disk space usage- but i noticed it does not perform as well as raid 0 + 1....is raid 0 reliable? also I was thinking maybe I could do raid 0 with 2x 1tb drives and back those up with a raid 1 2tb drive -is that possible, if yes is it a good idea?... keep in mind -I do not want to get 4 1tb drives for raid 0+1 because I believe that would cost too much for me right now.....and I would like to get the best performance...maybe should I get like 6 300gb hdds ? and use raid 0 + 1 , about 900gb each array.... Last edited by erebusting; 03-12-2009 at 10:01 AM.

03-12-2009, 11:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
Cromewell Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada Age: 26 Posts: 11,802	If you want a RAID array I would recommend RAID5. It doesnt give the same potential boost as RAID0 but it does give a good boost in certain applications (same as RAID0, it's still a striped array afterall) and it is fault tolerant. The downside is you need at least 3 drives. If you want a RAID 10 or 01, both perform very similarly when working normally but RAID 10 offers better fault tolerance and better rebuild speed should a drive fail. __________________ You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in command here. www.userfriendly.org

03-13-2009, 05:13 AM	#10 (permalink)
THERMAL-REACTOR Platinum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Niagara Falls, Canada Posts: 668	Whats your budget on storage and also how much space are you looking for? __________________ Intel Core i7 920 @ 4.2GHZ Asus P6T Deluxe 12Gb Patriot Viper DDR3 1600 Radeon HD4870X2 4 WD RE2 500GB (4 in Raid 0, 280mb/s read) Corsair HX1000W Antec 1200 Samsung 46" 1080P LCD PIC'S : THERMAL-REACTOR

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question about RAID 10 (1+0) and RAID 01 (0+1)	EGS	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	5	02-10-2009 06:40 AM
Need Clarification On RAID Arrays	Lycaroth	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	2	05-21-2008 04:44 PM
ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe No Bootable Raid	Diamondsleeper	Motherboards	1	09-11-2006 12:41 PM
A Raid Questions	Tormoni	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	3	11-17-2005 04:58 AM
RAID 5 vs. RAID 0 with SATA II	Jackson_T	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	3	05-07-2005 06:30 AM

03-12-2009, 10:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
erebusting Silver Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 193	Which would you recommend?...as I did mention before-I dont mind just using my external hdd to backup my main files so does that mean I should just use raid 0 and get the best performance/price ?...or is that too risky and should I just go with raid 0+1 or raid 5 (which would you recommend out of the two for 4 500gb hdds) ..?