How can i set up Raid plz??

H61MAD2V

H61MAD2V

New Member
My friend has set up raid on his computer to make two hard drives work together to enchance performance and to have more space to work on, how do i set up raid on my Gigabyte H61MA D2V motherboard, and can i actually set it up on this computer?? any help can be good thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That board doesn't support raid natively. The only way to get raid on that board is to buy a raid controller card.
 
The sata controller on your board only has 2 modes - IDE and AHCI. Your board has no raid capability built in.
 
johnb35 said:
The sata controller on your board only has 2 modes - IDE and AHCI. Your board has no raid capability built in.
Click to expand...

Yeah now that you mention it i did notice that the BIOS did only say AHCI and IDE it did not say nothing about RAID.ok thank you very much for your help! i appreciate it! I am going to think about getting a RAID controller card.
 
I wouldn't bother with RAID-0 myself (which by the sounds of things is what your friend has got). You don't get much performance increase and the drives are twice as likely to fail.
 
spirit said:
I wouldn't bother with RAID-0 myself (which by the sounds of things is what your friend has got). You don't get much performance increase and the drives are twice as likely to fail.
Click to expand...

Thats not accurate mate, its a striped array meaning half the information is on one disk and the other half on another. This doesn't cause a 50% reduction in MTFB. It will make no difference at all.

In terms of performance you will definitely see improvement, but it wont be double.
 
spirit said:
I wouldn't bother with RAID-0 myself (which by the sounds of things is what your friend has got). You don't get much performance increase and the drives are twice as likely to fail.
Click to expand...

bigfellla said:
Thats not accurate mate, its a striped array meaning half the information is on one disk and the other half on another. This doesn't cause a 50% reduction in MTFB. It will make no difference at all.

In terms of performance you will definitely see improvement, but it wont be double.
Click to expand...
Both of you are part right.

RAID-0 does improve performance, but you will typically only see noticeable gains when you are reading/writing large files, I used to have a RAID-0 setup and it greatly improved performance when having to duplicate large videos. Don't expect much of an improvement though if you are just opening applications.

As far as reliability, it doesn't decrease the MTFB but the RAID array is still twice as likely to fail. The reasoning is because you double the number of hard drives, which doubles the chance for one of the drives failing.
 
WRXGuy1 said:
As far as reliability, it doesn't decrease the MTFB but the RAID array is still twice as likely to fail. The reasoning is because you double the number of hard drives, which doubles the chance for one of the drives failing.
Click to expand...

That mathematically doesnt make sense.

IF the MTFB of a drive is 5 years say, then its still 5 years if you have 2. LOL.
 
bigfellla said:
That mathematically doesnt make sense.

IF the MTFB of a drive is 5 years say, then its still 5 years if you have 2. LOL.
Click to expand...
Hard drives are mechanical, and are much more prone to failure than any other component. Take a look at reviews for any hard drive, there are TONS of reviews stating that the hard drive either arrived DOA, or died within a few months. While this is unlikely given the number of drives they sell, when you have two hard drives in RAID 0 the chance of one of those drives failing pre-maturely is doubled for every drive.
 
You don't understand basic probability mate. 2 drives, both have the same (and crucially independant) probabilities of failing. Doesn't double if you add 2. LOL

You may be mis-understanding the difference between data loss probability (with RAID0) and hardware failure. Two very different things.
 
Last edited:
bigfellla said:
You don't understand basic probability mate. 2 drives, both have the same (and crucially independant) probabilities of failing. Doesn't double if you add 2. LOL
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Dont twist this around to fit your argument . You have two drives. Both have the same chance of failing. Having two drives does not double the chance of any (one) of the drives failing, true. The point is as the owner of the drives, I HAVE a double chance of any one of the drives failing because there is TWO. Its from the owners perspective of having two drives. Not from the drives perspective as in it doubles a failure of a single drive because you have two.
 
OMG. Really?

These drives have INDEPENDANT PROBABILITIES for hardware failure!

You don't add them together. One or 200, have the same probability of failure.
Its called, INDEPENDANT variables / probability! LOOK IT UP. The mistake you're both making is what most statistics student make (read all).

You don't double it unless they’re dependent on each other, and they're not.

The data may be beacuse it is in RAID0), but the hardware (HDD) themselves aren't. Pretty basic stuff and elemental descriptive mathematics.

In actual fact the probability goes down.

Say the probability of failure in 5 years is 20%. That’s 0.2 for both!

With independent statistics, the total probability is a multiplication of the two, meaning 0.2 x 0.2 = 4% not 40%.

Yes, the data loss in RAID0 is twice as likely (because you only need one to fail for the array to be destroyed), but the independent variable p for hardware failure, is exactly the same.

In fact this is the whole point of RAID. Every time you add a drive, the chance of BOTH (all) drives failing is exponentially less, not a multiplication of the n.
 
Last edited:
Has nothing to do with the drives % rate of failure. Its from the perspective of the owner. It doubles the owners probability that something will fail because you doubled the hardware. You use 20%, of course that doesnt mean the owner now has a 40% with two. But he does have two drives with a 20% chance each. You as a owner have doubled your odds because each drive has a 20% failure rate in 5 years. No different then running SLI or CF. You as the owner have doubled the chance that one card will fail before the general life of the cards. Has nothing to do with each cards failure rate. Like I said before its from the owners perspective, not from the % rate of failure of the hardware.
 
StrangleHold said:
Has nothing to do with the drives % rate of failure. Its from the perspective of the owner. It doubles the owners probability that something will fail because you doubled the hardware. You use 20%, of course that doesnt mean the owner now has a 40% with two. But he does have two drives with a 20% chance each. You as a owner have doubled your odds because each drive has a 20% failure rate in 5 years. No different then running SLI or CF. You as the owner have doubled the chance that one card will fail before the general life of the cards. Has nothing to do with each cards failure rate. Like I said before its from the owners perspective, not from the % rate of failure of the hardware.
Click to expand...

I think i have narrowed down our differences.

Im talking about failure of both drives, and you're talking about failure of one drive only.

However what you're missing, the MTFB is a coefficient calculated the way i am describing, thus, its fixed. Thats why its a useful figure.

We're making different points, and I think Im the wrong one on the application to the quesiton.
 
I understand what your saying from post 6. He said (the drives are twice as likely to fail). Which really isnt true. Im talking from the owners view, that you have doubled your chances of a failure because you have doubled the hardware.
 
I guess we're both right lol. But still a non-issue in my view.

With SMART disk, you get fair warning. When's the last time you have totally had a failure.

Let those puppies talk to each other and it makes them howl! You'll def see the difference in BF3.

I run the intel ssds (which need upgrading really), in RAID0, with image backup external. My whole computer runs with speed in mind, backups keep it clean and efficient.
 
Never thought I would. But the last build I used a Kingston HyperX 3K. Seemed like a really good drive. Think I might try one of the G Skill Phoenix III drives next.
 
bigfellla said:
I guess we're both right lol. But still a non-issue in my view.

With SMART disk, you get fair warning. When's the last time you have totally had a failure.

Let those puppies talk to each other and it makes them howl! You'll def see the difference in BF3.

I run the intel ssds (which need upgrading really), in RAID0, with image backup external. My whole computer runs with speed in mind, backups keep it clean and efficient.
Click to expand...
Seriously? No one said the odds of both drives failing are any different than the odds of one driving failing. The way RAID 0 works is if just one drive fails, the entire array fails. So I am correct, if you double the number of drives then you double the chances one of those drives will fail.

Think of it as a lottery ticket. If the odds of you winning are 1 in 1,000 you have a 0.001% chance of winning. Now if you buy two lottery tickets, the chances that one of those will win is now 2 in 1,000, or 0.002% (aka double).

Also, while SMART is great it isn't a guarantee. I've seen plenty of drives fail suddenly with no prior warning.
 
bigfellla said:
Thats not accurate mate, its a striped array meaning half the information is on one disk and the other half on another. This doesn't cause a 50% reduction in MTFB. It will make no difference at all.

In terms of performance you will definitely see improvement, but it wont be double.
Click to expand...

Opps should have said "if you lose one drive the data on the other drive is useless" instead of "twice as likely to fail".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top