Setting up raid

[FLaCo]

The Raid_0 setup is geared toward performance with fast write and read speeds and only require two HD's on two seperate Channels. A Raid_1 is mainly for security i beleve it mirrors everything you save on one HDD to the other someone correct me if i am wrong. A RAID_0+1 is lil bit of both with performance and security but this one can get expensive since you will need 4HDD for this setup. It uses the two for a RAID_0 and another two for RAID_1.
Again correct me if i am wrong but i think that is the idea.

[Beefy]

Basics of RAID (very basic):

RAID 0 - basically turns multiple drives into one logical drive.

RAID 1 - Mirroring / duplexing. Uses multiple drives and creates mirror images of data on each drive. Useful for redundancy / safety.

RAID 2 / 3 / 4 - No longer used

RAID 5 - Uses three or more drives, stores information across the drives and also includes a 'parity checkbit' on one of them. Basically, you can lose a drive, replace it with a blank one and it can reconstruct the data.

[FLaCo]

Beefy why do i make everything so complicated...lol...

[ReSpAwN DeMoN]

Unless you really need / want a RAID setup, I'd hold off for a while. With so many things just around the corner, it could be worthwhile waiting a little bit and seeing what happens then.

that's true.......I mean between the NV30 and AMD's Hammer if the hammer is sucessful in terms of heat and speed and compatibility. I am DEFINITLY upgrading. Also doom 3.......I will definitly make a side note to buy a mobo with raid capabilities. :D

[Beefy]

Beefy why do i make everything so complicated...lol...

Hehehe.. I just couldn't be bothered putting in a big explanation.

I did forget RAID 0+1 though, which is normally four HDDs. Two of the drives use RAID 0 to basically make one logical drive, which is then mirrored onto the other two drives. Combines the best elements from both methods, although costs more (naturally, four drives instead of two)

[Wiggo]

One big advantage of the RAID 0+1 setup is that if you loose a HDD you don't loose the system. :thumb:
Just put a new drive in and the RAID can then be repaired back to it's original state. ;)
<center>:cheers:</center>

[Beefy]

if you are lucky enough, you can lose two drives and still have it working.. depending on which two die. :)

[ChampionOfGod]

:) That's almost what you want. You were right though, it only supports up to ATA33. Mainly because it's an older card. There should be plenty more out there. A couple good names to look for are Promise and Highpoint.

go here....

http://www.directron.com/ide.html

iam getting one of this soon
: party ha

[ReSpAwN DeMoN]

dude that's a good price. I wonder if I should get the ATA133 one for expansion purposes if I ever upgrade my drives to that speed.

[Wiggo]

It can't hurt as it's backwards compatible. ;)

[FLaCo]

Yea that is a very good price...and its a Promise...good deal.

WIGGO how do you do it...Almost 11000 Posts...man that alot....

[Wiggo]

I type too much and badly need a life? :?:

[drpeterbright]

I think that it's because he has so much knowledge it keeps leaking out to make room for more. :cheers:

[zeradul]

I agree, I would hate to put together an expensive RAID setup to have it out-performed a less expensive, single drive in two months by the next technology (serial ATA)

And one thing that I don't think was quite covered well enough, let this be known, that if some bad sectors occur on ONE of the drives, (or other various problem with one drive only) will result in the loss of ALL the data on BOTH drives in nearly all cases.

[ReSpAwN DeMoN]

well I learnt alot and I'm saying NO!! to raid. raid is bad. My IBM drive will suffice. I just wanna know why it scores soooooooo low in pcmark 2002 I'm getting like um 506? while my friend has a WD 40 gig 7200 RPM and is getting over 700. his drive raped mine. but IBM drives have faster seek times then wd's I have 8.5 and he has 8.9. Why is this?