how did this person do this?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Didou

Posts: 4,182   +5
Well the Abit at7 MAXX had a Highpoint controller allowing to connect 8 IDE devices, on top of the 4 IDE devices that you could connect to the Via IDE controller.

 

LNCPapa

Posts: 4,310   +567
TS Special Forces
That's a pretty impressive setup that guy has - but yes - it's RAID-0 . Only prob with that is if one drive goes down all the data is lost. Even still that's how I'd set up if I had identical hardware :)
 

---agissi---

Posts: 1,929   +15
I'd mirror 4 striped hard drives ;)

HD Striped1 - Mirror of striped set #1 [1] Mirror of striped set #1 [2]
|
HD Striped2 - Mirror of striped set #2 [1] Mirror of striped set #2 [2]
|
HD Striped3 - Mirror of striped set #3 [1] Mirror of striped set #3 [2]
|
HD Striped4 - Mirror of striped set #4 [1] Mirror of striped set #4 [2]
 

Vehementi

Posts: 2,645   +1
That's certainly not what I would do if I had $800 to spend on hard drives, but ok...

And agissi that's called RAID0+1, most every modern RAID controller supports it.
 

---agissi---

Posts: 1,929   +15
Originally posted by Vehementi
That's certainly not what I would do if I had $800 to spend on hard drives, but ok...

And agissi that's called RAID0+1, most every modern RAID controller supports it.
I know its 0+1 :p Thats like my dream setup, you get the best of both worlds, speed and protection.. half the space though which sucks :( But I dont see the point in having 1TB of space [so much space] when you can lose it all when just one hard drive fails :( Can you striped 8 HDs together? (thats his setup right?)

That's certainly not what I would do if I had $800 to spend on hard drives, but ok...
Then what would you do?
 

LNCPapa

Posts: 4,310   +567
TS Special Forces
Right - and yes. Were I not on a constant hurt for space I would like some redundancy - but I always need more so striping is my method. Guess RAID-5 would be fine also - don't lose as much space.
 

DaveSylvia

Posts: 106   +0
RAID 5 stores parity information (RAID 1 essentially copies the data fully) across the disks in the array, this information can then be used to rebuild lost data in case of disk failure. This is much like how PAR 1 and PAR 2 files are used to recreate a missing file in a chain of split RAR files. Its not quite as fast as RAID 1+0 but it is cheaper. It's read performance is very good but the write speeds, while good, aren't quite as good as the faster RAID setups.
 

DaveSylvia

Posts: 106   +0
Originally posted by ---agissi---
but you also get more disk space right?
Yes! Each hard drive connected to the array stores the parity information in a RAID 5. The data is then spread around to all the disks. So yeah, unlike in a RAID 0+1, you wouldn't need extra hard drives mirroring the information. You might put those extra hard drives to use elsewhere or if you had planned for this type of situation you probably would not have purchased any extra disks to begin with.
 

LNCPapa

Posts: 4,310   +567
TS Special Forces
RAID5 requires a minimum of 3 hard drives and most consumer level RAID controllers don't support RAID5
 

Godataloss

Posts: 476   +1
Please excuse my ignorance, but why in the world would you want a non-redundant 1TB chunk of storage in a desk-top pc? Using it as a file server? Seems to me Id rather have them set up as slaves with their own letter and use one for games, one for moovies, music, etc. From what I've read, the real world performance of raid arrays in desktops is marginally better than standard quality hd.
 

DaveSylvia

Posts: 106   +0
Originally posted by ---agissi---
Then why would in the world, would anyone do Raid1 in the first place, when you can do Raid5? :confused:
Remember also, that RAID 5 only only does parity. It does not save all of the data. RAID 0+1 makes a copy of ALL of the data. Its just more protection and that really is the key to 0+1. In my experience RAID 5 isn't going to be used as much as a more fail safe RAID setup. Like LNCPapa stated, RAID 5 isn't on most consumer RAID controllers. Interestingly enough thats really where most of the use of RAID 5 would be. Many businesses wouldn't use RAID 5 simply because it doesn't do enough.

Also, RAID 5 shouldn't be compared to RAID 1 which is only mirroring. RAID 5 improves both read and write where RAID 1 only improves the read speeds. Anandtech has a fantastic FAQ for RAID and its permutations.

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=110
 

Rick

Posts: 4,512   +66
Originally posted by Vehementi
That's certainly not what I would do if I had $800 to spend on hard drives, but ok...

And agissi that's called RAID0+1, most every modern RAID controller supports it.
... If you don't buy a cheap one. :)
 

Vehementi

Posts: 2,645   +1
Originally posted by ---agissi---
Then what would you do?
Either just RAID0 or RAID0+1 with 4 74GB WD Raptors :) I have one of them now, and I can't say how incredibly awesome and how fast it is. Especially when I have a 15GB partition for extracting big files (like 1.4GB .rar's :() and encoding movies in.
 

Rick

Posts: 4,512   +66
Originally posted by Godataloss
From what I've read, the real world performance of raid arrays in desktops is marginally better than standard quality hd.
Not when you have a dozen of them strapped together. :)

While I agree I wouldn't make a 0 RAID out of all of these hard drives, I still would have tried it just for the sheer fun of it. I'm sure that is what this guy did as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.