RAID vs plain SATA?

[attilathehun1]

I'm reading this motherboard manual and it's a very interesting manual. This
manual tells alot about how to create a RAID , set SATA RAID/AHCI Mode under
Intergrated Peripherals menu to RAID. It's disabled by default. If you don't
want to create RAID, set this item to Disabled or AHCI.
What is the advantage to create RAID opposed to not creating RAID, what is
the bonus?
This manual is real detailed. This is like a learning manual for a class.
Ok, lets get on with building the new PC.
Oh yeah, newegg.com sent back the motherboard again. This is the second
time they've sent it back. This mobo is an S-Series GA-EP35C-DS3R.
I'm sticking the SAMSUNG Spinpoint SP1614C SATA hard drive into the
Thermaltake tower. This is the totally new PC that everyone wanted to know
how it turned out. Well, it's starting again. This time I'm not going to
stick everything on it and fire it up. I'm going with the bare essentials and
then I can add on after I know it fires up. I've learned a lesson on how to
cut corners, the hard way!
Any more help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, attilathehun1

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I'm reading this motherboard manual and it's a very interesting
manual. This manual tells alot about how to create a RAID , set
SATA RAID/AHCI Mode under Intergrated Peripherals menu to RAID.
It's disabled by default. If you don't want to create RAID, set
this item to Disabled or AHCI.
What is the advantage to create RAID opposed to not creating RAID,
what is the bonus?
This manual is real detailed. This is like a learning manual for a
class. Ok, lets get on with building the new PC.
Oh yeah, newegg.com sent back the motherboard again. This is the
second
time they've sent it back. This mobo is an S-Series GA-EP35C-DS3R.
I'm sticking the SAMSUNG Spinpoint SP1614C SATA hard drive into the
Thermaltake tower. This is the totally new PC that everyone wanted
to know how it turned out. Well, it's starting again. This time I'm
not going to stick everything on it and fire it up. I'm going with
the bare essentials and then I can add on after I know it fires up.
I've learned a lesson on how to cut corners, the hard way!
Any more help will be greatly appreciated.

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks...
(More than one drive put together to improve performance and/or redundancy.)

If you only have one drive - you don't have a RAID.
If you only have two drives and have more space available to use than one of
them (you have the combined size) - then you have no redundancy - so some
would say you don't have a RAID - but it is still called RAID 0 (striped)
and it can improve performance.

Etc...

 

[John McKenzie]

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks...
(More than one drive put together to improve performance and/or redundancy.)

If you only have one drive - you don't have a RAID.
If you only have two drives and have more space available to use than one of
them (you have the combined size) - then you have no redundancy - so some
would say you don't have a RAID - but it is still called RAID 0 (striped)
and it can improve performance.

Etc...

5% or 10% increase in performance is about all you see in RAID 0.
I do not know if it is worth it. RAID 1 at least gives a backup of sorts.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snip>

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks...
(More than one drive put together to improve performance and/or
redundancy.)
If you only have one drive - you don't have a RAID.
If you only have two drives and have more space available to use
than one of them (you have the combined size) - then you have no
redundancy - so some would say you don't have a RAID - but it is
still called RAID 0 (striped) and it can improve performance.

Etc...

5% or 10% increase in performance is about all you see in RAID 0.
I do not know if it is worth it. RAID 1 at least gives a backup of
sorts.

I'd rather use RAID0 than RAID1 - as I see no benefit to RAID1 other than
the ability to recover from an instantaneous hardware failure of the main
drive. ;-)

However - I put 'etc...' to imply more research could be done by the OP. ;-)

 

[Bill in Co.]

<snip>





I'd rather use RAID0 than RAID1 - as I see no benefit to RAID1 other than
the ability to recover from an instantaneous hardware failure of the main
drive. ;-)

However - I put 'etc...' to imply more research could be done by the OP.
;-)

Imply? No, a more direct statement to that effect is needed for "Attila
the Hun".

 

[Andrew E.]

Well first you need two SATA hds for RAID,then configure the two.2nd,most
of the past posts give you an idea that most posts havent a clue as to how
SATA & RAID performance effects a OS...RAID is about 2X as fast as SATA.For
details,look at the performance graph
at:http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/platform_technologies/storage_performance.htm

 

[RJK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks

enjoy

regards, Richard

 

[DL]

utter drivel, as usuall

Well first you need two SATA hds for RAID,then configure the two.2nd,most
of the past posts give you an idea that most posts havent a clue as to how
SATA & RAID performance effects a OS...RAID is about 2X as fast as
SATA.For
details,look at the performance graph
at:http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/platform_technologies/storage_performance.htm

 

[DL]

You've posted so many times recently that its hard to work out what the
current status of play is

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snip>

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks...
(More than one drive put together to improve performance and/or
redundancy.)
If you only have one drive - you don't have a RAID.
If you only have two drives and have more space available to use
than one of them (you have the combined size) - then you have no
redundancy - so some would say you don't have a RAID - but it is
still called RAID 0 (striped) and it can improve performance.

Etc...

5% or 10% increase in performance is about all you see in RAID 0.
I do not know if it is worth it. RAID 1 at least gives a backup of
sorts.

I'd rather use RAID0 than RAID1 - as I see no benefit to RAID1
other than the ability to recover from an instantaneous hardware
failure of the main drive. ;-)

However - I put 'etc...' to imply more research could be done by
the OP. ;-)

I use RAID-1 in all of my own workstations because it's cheap, and I
don't have to worry about a single drive taking down my computer for
hours. We don't normally backup workstations, saving all data to the
servers, don't even ghost workstations any more. Reinstalling the
OS and all apps takes MANY hours, so RAID-1 saves us money and lots
of time.

RAID-0 holds little benefit unless you're doing video editing and it
increases your system failure rate to a value higher than just a
single drive would.

My problem with hardware RAID1 is that it is mirroring everything.

In all my years working with computers - rarely is it a hardware issue that
takes down a server. Hard drives do die - true - but most of the time it is
a patch, a corruption in a file, human error, etc. The problem I have had
using a hardware mirror array is that a patch, a corruption in a file and
the human error (especially if it has to do with something with the file
system) is instantly mirrored to the other drive - meaning both 'copies' are
worthless. Of course - my examples assume your OS is what is being
mirrored - but even if it is the files only drive(s) - an erasure on one is
instantly replicated on the other in the case of a hardware mirror.

In other words - in my opinion - excluding instantaneous hardware failure -
the benefits of (hardware) RAID1 are practically non-existent. If the files
were corrupted/erased and replicated - both of your copies are bad and you
will still be doing the same work you would have done with only a single
drive. ;-)

 

[Lil' Dave]

I agree, but, since I see around 100 failed drives per year, the cost of
a RAID-1 is well spent vs RAID-0.

I have one small customer with an IBM 226 server, they have 5 drives,
two arrays, Drive 0/1 RAID-1, drive 2/3/4 RAID-5 (not my choice, we just
gained them as a client), and they've had 4 drives fail in the last 3
months, two on the RAID-1 and two on the RAID-5, at different times, and
nothing was lost, no down-time, just slower performance.

I have several workstations in my own office, all use RAID-1, and have
personally lost several drives over the years, and not had more than a
few minutes of down-time as I replaced the failed drive.

RAID-0 is always bad news and only benefits those that "FEEL" they have
to be fast and those that edit video/images that are large, but, it's
worth the risk and we ghost their systems for when their R0 fails.

Yes, most corruption is due to an update/patch, but you can often
resolve those without reinstalling EVERYTHING from scratch.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

In the thread, given the user has no apparent experience with RAID, probably
bungles alot of stuff in the OS, is RAID 0 or RAID 1 more appropriate in
this situation?

And back to the core of the question, is simple SATA or some form of RAID (0
OR 1) more appropriate considering an multiple image backups OR a hidden
clone can be kept on the 2nd SATA hard drive?
--
Dave

Speculation on a product or material that is
an obvious need, is not speculation per se
as there is no risk to the speculator.
Common were those selling food and other
supplies in the gold rush days.
In this case, its oil and its everyone who
bites the bullet. And most everyone has no gold
to be made, just business as usual.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

In the thread, given the user has no apparent experience with RAID,
probably bungles alot of stuff in the OS, is RAID 0 or RAID 1 more
appropriate in this situation?

And back to the core of the question, is simple SATA or some form
of RAID (0 OR 1) more appropriate considering an multiple image
backups OR a hidden clone can be kept on the 2nd SATA hard drive?

The OP likely should do no RAID.

Backups (system state + imaging) is really the best solution (IMHO) for
disaster recovery.

RAID5 would be a decent choice for keeping things running - yes - you have
to have three + drives, but it is worth it (especially considering the cost
of large hard disk drives these days) - in that it keeps things running
until you replace defective hardware.

 

[attilathehun1]

Ok, I get it, I only have 1 hard drive, so RAID is out. I then want to go
into BIOS and Intergrated Peripherals and ensure that Onboard SATA/IDE Device
is enabled. Then if I don't want to create RAID then set Onboard SATA/IDE
Ctrl Mode to IDE or AHCI, not to RAID/IDE. But, I want to create SATA, but
since I only have 1 hard drive I don't use RAID? Also, since it's not IDE,
but it's AHCI? Is AHCI SATA? So, I want to set Onboard SATA/IDE Ctrl Mode to
AHCI, to create just SATA?
It's a SAMSUNG Spinpoint SP1614C hard drive, which is SATA. I'm not sure
about the model number and I'm too tired and fed up to go back and look.
Look, besides telling me that since I only have one hard drive and RAID
isn't used for only 1 hard drive, the other replies are a bunch of bullshit.
Look, I'm to the point where I'll max out whatever I can. I have 4 SATA
connectors, or 8 SATA connectors, 4 boxes on the mobo. 3 are yellow and 1 is
purple. I think the purple is a GSATAII0/GSATAII1. If that purple connector
is faster, then I want to use that one. Now, I have a feeling someone is
going to tell me I'm a non-bite and say that the purple connector is used for
RAID? I don't know and I'm fed up to the max.
Ok, lets take a few counts here and calm down.
So far, I've found out that I don't use RAID if I only have 1 hard drive.
Ok now, where do I go from there, in order to create or have the motherboard
or operating system recognize the SATA drive?
Please if someone has a brain, give me a details, step by step reply. For
example, go into BIOS and go to Intergrated Peripherals and set this option
to enable or this option to wtf. Another example would be to say use the
motherboard supplied CD and create a floppy disk with the SATA drivers on it,
and when the Operating System asked you to press key F6 if you have any
additional bullshit to add, then wait for the window that says to press S.
Something detailed like that would be nice. Now what I've just given you, I
tried already and it didn't work. Now maybe it didn't work because I copied
the wrong drivers onto the floppy diskette, and maybe it didn't work because
the motherboard I was trying to use is a piece of crap. It's an ECS
Elitegroup model GF6100-M754, that got poor reviews from newegg.com.
That brings me to another question that I better make a new post for.
Having to do with this piece of wtf work mobo.
Thanks, attilathehun1