Gorth Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 (edited) The only really useful RAID is RAID level 5. This is what businesses use for data that must not be compromised: it allows for a drive in the array to be lost, swapped out with a new, unformatted one, and the array survive and rebuild across the span including the new disk. (This is called "hot-swapping" and keeps the data secure whilst the maintenance is performed; I have actually done this.) Actually, RAID 5 is the only unusable one, the one businesses stay *away* from :)" You get the worst of both worlds, crappiest performance and some loss of disk space (although the wasted space becomes less proportionally with more disks). If you want redundancy, you use RAID 1, if you want speed you use RAID 0, if you want speed and redundancy you use RAID 1+0 (which is an awful lot of disks). RAID 5 is the red headed step child which you can use for archive storage systems (where performance isn't critical), but thats about it. Edited March 14, 2006 by Gorth “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 RAID 5 is actually popular in businesses. Many implement RAID 5+0 to negate the performance penalty. Besides, RAID 4 would certainly be more "unusable" than RAID 5 (if you're talking about the only unusable one). It provides nothing that RAID 5 doesn't provide, but RAID 5 provides it faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Probably. When I was living in missouri, it was easy to live on the minimum wage, anything more than that and you could live quite well <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missouri is super cheap in the most awesome of ways. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 RAID 5 is actually popular in businesses. Many implement RAID 5+0 to negate the performance penalty. >_ ... Please tell me you meant it as a joke :ph34r: “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 (edited) $8.00 an hour? Is your cost of living in Iowa cheaper? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My guess is that he has no rent or car or food to pay for. Which only makes him one lucky frak. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do have rent to pay, electricity, and phone. I also buy my own food. My share is $370 rent, $40 phone, and $25 on utilities. I don't own a car and don't really need one. Here in Ames I walk everywhere or take the bus. Edited March 14, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Baulder's Gate 2! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your spelling skills have failed you oh great and wonderful master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 $8.00 an hour? Is your cost of living in Iowa cheaper? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My guess is that he has no rent or car or food to pay for. Which only makes him one lucky frak. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do have rent to pay, electricity, and phone. I also buy my own food. My share is $370 rent, $40 phone, and $25 on utilities. I don't own a car and don't really need one. Here in Ames I walk everywhere or take the bus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> $370 for your share of the rent? How many people and what is the base rent at?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) Its a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom apartment at $715, $735 if late, a month and I am sharing it with one other guy. The lease is up in August so I am thinking getting a 1 bedroom by myself. Edited March 15, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Of course it is but doing the impossible is what gives life meaning. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No one said anything about completing Morrowind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) RAID 5 is actually popular in businesses. Many implement RAID 5+0 to negate the performance penalty. ... Please tell me you meant it as a joke :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope. It is popular. http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html You'll notice RAID 4 is the only one with no recommended implementations. Edited March 15, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 The only really useful RAID is RAID level 5. This is what businesses use for data that must not be compromised: it allows for a drive in the array to be lost, swapped out with a new, unformatted one, and the array survive and rebuild across the span including the new disk. (This is called "hot-swapping" and keeps the data secure whilst the maintenance is performed; I have actually done this.) Actually, RAID 5 is the only unusable one, the one businesses stay *away* from " You get the worst of both worlds, crappiest performance and some loss of disk space (although the wasted space becomes less proportionally with more disks). If you want redundancy, you use RAID 1, if you want speed you use RAID 0, if you want speed and redundancy you use RAID 1+0 (which is an awful lot of disks). RAID 5 is the red headed step child which you can use for archive storage systems (where performance isn't critical), but thats about it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gee, all those Fortune 100 companies that I worked for must be very silly to use RAID 5, then. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 It is software RAID 5 that tends to be slow due to the amount of XOR calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html You'll notice RAID 4 is the only one with no recommended implementations. Actually, the 5+0 didn't either Maybe a good solution for sites who would have otherwise gone with RAID 5 but need some additional performance boost Not exactly a "recommended" implentation. Anyway, for my purposes (SQL servers with a high number of write transactions) there is really no way around 0+1 “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Different tasks require different RAID solutions. But remember, RAID 0 doesn't provide ANY redundancy, and in fact makesw the data more vulnerable. RAID 0+1 stripes and mirrors the data, but your are really trying to speed up the mirror rather than vice versa. If you want the ability to recover from a disk crash, i.e. if the data is MISSION CRITICAL, then RAID 5 is really the only option. Comapq made their drives hot-swappable to meet the demand. Responding to a large volume of write traffic is a different ball of wax, and needn't be handled with the hard-drive technology (batch writing from memory, Flash-RAM cache, etc). The solutions I designed didn't need speed over data security; we weren't doing a bajillion credit card transaction a minute for Visa ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) Actually, the 5+0 didn't either Maybe a good solution for sites who would have otherwise gone with RAID 5 but need some additional performance boost Not exactly a "recommended" implentation. I never said that RAID 5+0 was a common solution either. I did mention that it was used to help improve transfer rates. My point stemmed from RAID 5 not being nearly as uncommon as you think it is. And certainly not as useless. Besides, if you actually read the article you linked to, it's not RAID 5+0, but more like RAID 03. It's not recommended because it's very expensive. RAID 4 isn't recommended because there are other formats (i.e. RAID 5) that are superior to it in every way. Anyway, for my purposes (SQL servers with a high number of write transactions) there is really no way around 0+1 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Though we were never discussing what works for you, but the overall usefulness of the RAID 5 architecture. Though if you weren't doing a lot of write transactions, most people would actually recommend RAID 5. Edited March 15, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 RAID 5 is actually popular in businesses. I never said that RAID 5+0 was a common solution either. Popular, yet not common. That's an odd combination. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 RAID 5 is different from RAID 5+0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Though we were never discussing what works for you, but the overall usefulness of the RAID 5 architecture. Though if you weren't doing a lot of write transactions, most people would actually recommend RAID 5. I think we were discussing Hades' hardware, not really RAID's at all. I just felt like changing the subject :D RAID 5 is the red headed step child which you can use for archive storage systems (where performance isn't critical), but thats about it. I stand by that. RAID 5 is fine when performance isn't critical (implicit, data redundancy is, otherwise you wouldn't bother with RAID at all) “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now