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

E

erebusting

New Member
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:
....is raid 0 reliable?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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) ..?
 
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.
 
Cromewell said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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.
 
erebusting said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
mac550 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
erebusting said:
by a '3rd' disk you mean like an extra disk not in any raid arrangement?
Click to expand...

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 said:
Whats your budget on storage and also how much space are you looking for?
Click to expand...

well I didnt really want to spend more than 300...I was thinking of 2x750gb RE3 western digital drives in raid 0?....hmm-I think I would like to do raid 0+1 instead of 5 so I could keep that performance boost and still ahve backup -but that means I would need 4 drives?...hmm, its tough to make a good decision and not go over a budget...
 
I had Raid 5 across 4 drives. I was gettting about 140mb/s. Now with 3 in raid 0 I get 230gb/s and currently using one for backup. I just need to buy another 1tb (thinking the Green edition) and I will put all 4 into raid 0 for about 260-280 mb/s. The Raid Edition really helps and I have not had a single crash yet with mine.
 
THERMAL-REACTOR said:
I had Raid 5 across 4 drives. I was gettting about 140mb/s. Now with 3 in raid 0 I get 230gb/s and currently using one for backup. I just need to buy another 1tb (thinking the Green edition) and I will put all 4 into raid 0 for about 260-280 mb/s. The Raid Edition really helps and I have not had a single crash yet with mine.
Click to expand...

nice...so you have had pretty good luck with raid 0?..
but yeah you know I heard the green edition sacrifices performance for power efficiency....? I also read that the RE series is made to be used in raid...now I could be wrong....what do you think? what drives are you using so far?....
do you think it would be a better idea to spread the storage across more drives? (to get better performance)...such as maybe 4x500gb drives vs 2x1tb drives ?...or even 8x250gb drives?....

side question:
would I need to get a raid controller or should my motherboard have one onboard already?
 
Last edited:
erebusting said:
nice...so you have had pretty good luck with raid 0?..
but yeah you know I heard the green edition sacrifices performance for power efficiency....? I also read that the RE series is made to be used in raid...now I could be wrong....what do you think? what drives are you using so far?....
do you think it would be a better idea to spread the storage across more drives? (to get better performance)...such as maybe 4x500gb drives vs 2x1tb drives ?...or even 8x250gb drives?....

side question:
would I need to get a raid controller or should my motherboard have one onboard already?
Click to expand...

All x58 motherboards come with an excellent Raid controller (called ICH10R). In my sig you can see I went with 4 RE2 (RE3 wasn`t out) 500GB WD`s. I have owned this since December and neither Raid setup ever failed. I think 4 500`s is the most cost effective solution with the greatest performance outcome.

The Green edition drives are excellent and perform very well compared to other drives. I would use them for storage only tho. Get RE3`s if you are going any kind of Raid.

Raid 5 on the 4 Harddrives gives very good performance and doesn`t break the bank. If one drive fails the Array still runs and all you do is replace the damage Harddrive and the Array rebuilds itself. It cannot recover from 2 bad drives tho. Just makes sure to replace it Asap if one does fail.
 
THERMAL-REACTOR said:
All x58 motherboards come with an excellent Raid controller (called ICH10R). In my sig you can see I went with 4 RE2 (RE3 wasn`t out) 500GB WD`s. I have owned this since December and neither Raid setup ever failed. I think 4 500`s is the most cost effective solution with the greatest performance outcome.

The Green edition drives are excellent and perform very well compared to other drives. I would use them for storage only tho. Get RE3`s if you are going any kind of Raid.

Raid 5 on the 4 Harddrives gives very good performance and doesn`t break the bank. If one drive fails the Array still runs and all you do is replace the damage Harddrive and the Array rebuilds itself. It cannot recover from 2 bad drives tho. Just makes sure to replace it Asap if one does fail.
Click to expand...


I like the idea of raid 5, but I hate how you lose performance...hmm I guess I can just get 4hdd and try out raid 5 though, I can always switch it to raid 0....but you said you have been using just raid 0 for a while now?...I might do that-maybe...as I stated before I dont mind copying my important files to another drive and say if one drive fails then I dont mind installing windows and just copying my files back over....does that sound reasonable though? (probably not ..? lol)
 
I do not keep anything very important on my gaming computer. I have another computer for that kind of stuff so I don't have to worry if my Gaming rig is down.
4 WD RE3's in Raid 0 will out perform 2 Velicoraptor and cost less also. The Raid Edition drives are very stable and I have had this Array up for about 2 months with no problems so far. With only 3 drives I hit a peak of 250mb/s and average 230mb/s. I would imagine 4 to be in the 250 -270 average range with well over 300mb/s peak.
 
Last edited:
Yes you lose some theoretical performance with RAID5. There are so few applications that are able to benefit from RAID0 that I say it's not worth the time to set up.
 
Cromewell said:
Yes you lose some theoretical performance with RAID5. There are so few applications that are able to benefit from RAID0 that I say it's not worth the time to set up.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Everything you do on the computer is sped up using Raid. From simply opening programs, to copying files, harddrive throughput is useful in any modern day computer. Games load faster, your computer boots faster, more throughput for running multiple Virtual Machines, and I can go on and on. If you are looking to get the most out of your computer than it only makes sense to have your hardrives on par with the rest of your system.
 
I disagree. Everything you do on the computer is sped up using Raid. From simply opening programs, to copying files, harddrive throughput is useful in any modern day computer. Games load faster, your computer boots faster, more throughput for running multiple Virtual Machines, and I can go on and on. If you are looking to get the most out of your computer than it only makes sense to have your hardrives on par with the rest of your system.
Click to expand...
A good 90+% of what you do is not sped up by RAID0. Yes load times are better and copying large files is faster. But how often are you copying 500+MB files on your drive? And loading is a 1 time hit. Still I know there's no sense in arguing it. RAID0 advocates claim everything is unbelieveably faster and there's no convincing them otherwise.

I'll leave it with this article. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101
 
You need to decide how important your data is and consider all the options for backup. If you are backing up applications, you might as well put a second drive in the system and do a sector transfer evey time you add a new application. Then you can just switch drives if one fails. If you are backing up data files, then you need either some sort of external backup or choose a mirrored RAID arrangement.

For a consumer the only one that makes sense to me is RAID 1. It requires just two drives and provides mirroring. The downside is that the array operates more slowly than a single drive. How much slower depends on the design of the RAID. Some write the two mirrored drives simultaneously (slower) and some write to a single drive and handle mirroring in the background (faster.) More complex RAID's make sense for sizeable commercial networks but not much sense for an individual.

The best arrangement is to use external backup so that your internal drives will operate full speed. Personally, I use a little 2 drive NAS unit that is configured for RAID 1. I can backup all the systems in my network to it. I don't use it as shared storage as it is intended. I use it only for backup. My computers do automatic backups to the NAS every day. You can buy these as enclosures and put any size drives in them - well drives of the same capacity or else they configure for the lower capacity drive.

For a person without a network I would recommend getting an external drive that connects via USB. These can also be had as two drive or 4 drive RAID units that work just like my NAS except that they don't operate as a network node. They just connect to your computer and operating system and act like an internal drive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top