Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Help setting up RAID for the 1st time


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 PieLam

PieLam

  • Members
  • 248 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 10 March 2016 - 04:33 PM

Hi all,
 
I'd like to get some advice/help in setting up RAID on my other (main) PC.
 
Some info on my other PC:
It's running Win 7 Pro (64)
I built it myself from scratch.  It has an Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 MoBo, 8 GB DDR3 RAM.  It has a 4170 FX CPU (4.2 GHZ) not o'clocked.  I just finished installing a Corsair 100i GTX 240mm radiator cooling system.
1 SSD (C:)
2 Western Digital 1Tb black edition; Brand new, no partitions
2 optical DVD drives (1 blue ray)
All these drives are SATA3 (6 GPS) & are connected to my PC.
 
The following 2 drives are also SATA, but NOT connected, they are also on a shelf:
1 Seagate 1.5 TB formerly my D: drive
1 Western Digital 1 TB formerly my F: drive
 
Both contain data that I'd like to keep, both have used space that are well under 50%, especially the D: drive (Seagate)
 
If possible, I'd like RAID my 2 new WDs & then copy the data from my old D: & F: drives to my new RAID drive.
 
I know very little about RAID.  I THINK that I'd like to use it.  I also think that it would make sense in my case.  I've never even set up a RAID & am a little apprehensive about doing this. I guess I should ask, is what I'd like to do even possible?  Are there any hidden gotchas?
THANX
 
PS
If any further info is needed, just let me know.
 
 


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,276 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 10 March 2016 - 09:31 PM

IMO...the biggest "gotcha" with RAID configurations lies with the vulnerability when compared to having a number of known-good backu0s via software.

 

Typical system problem scenarios appear (IMO) more difficult to resolve when a RAID is set up, since the RAID itself must be considered in addition to any hardware, software, or malware factors.

 

Unless I was a gamer...I would not even consider any RAID setup...the potentials for problems outweigh any perceived advantages I could come up with.  I'm not a gamer and gamers play by different rules of logic than I do :).  For years now, I've thought that RAID was an outdated concept...seems that others have given that concept some thought.

 

Are RAID Configurations Outdated?

 

Louis



#3 PieLam

PieLam
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 248 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 11 March 2016 - 11:36 AM

hamluis, on 10 Mar 2016 - 8:31 PM, said:
IMO...the biggest "gotcha" with RAID configurations lies with the vulnerability when compared to having a number of known-good backu0s via software.

 

 

If I understand you correctly, you're speaking of one depending on RAID for a data back-up?
If that's correct, I had no intentions of that, I would still perform the same back-ups as I do now, as infrequent as they may be.

 

 

Typical system problem ...

 

 

That's good enough for me. Those are the exact things I wanted to know about. Thanx for bringing this to light!

 

 

I'm not a gamer and gamers play by different rules of logic than I do :)

 

I know what you mean... If gaming is your thing, that's cool! However, it's not my thing neither.

 

 

For years now, I've thought that RAID was an outdated concept...seems that others have given that concept some thought.

Louis

 

 

Thanks for the link & your opinion!  I think RAID is better suited for the commercial side.  Although, I read several appealing qualities about a RAID, IMO they're not enough to sway me to implement on my system.

 

I guess I was just curious and thought I should jump on the perceived "bandwagon."



#4 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,276 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 11 March 2016 - 11:52 AM

Well...I'd wait for more opinions :).

 

There are many members more experienced and knowledgeable about RAID configurations who should provide more valid thoughts than mine may be.

 

Louis



#5 Cryo7c1

Cryo7c1

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 12 March 2016 - 11:03 PM

Greetings, I was remembering the days when I would help people out on internet message boards and started to poke around to see if they are still a thing.  I've been a Sr Systems Engineer in IT for over 12 years now. 

 

I decided to search for some more advanced topics and this one popped up.  I happen to manage all of the storage at the company I work for.

 

So, first, I'd like to know what your goal for implementing RAID is.  The answer to that would change my recommendation.

 

You could configure RAID-1, for mirroring, with two drives, to gain resiliency in the event of a drive failure.  This would cut your capacity in half but if one of the two drives failed, your data would still be there, accessible just as it was before a failure occurred (provided only one drive failed of course).  This is no replacement for backups as other forms of data loss exist.  It also yields no performance increase.

 

Or, you could configure RAID-0, for striping, which IMO isn't RAID because the R in RAID stands for redundant.  RAID-0 is not redundant at all.  If any drive dies in a RAID-0 configuration you would not recover from that disaster without advanced recovery techniques that cost thousands of dollars.  I know, because it's happened to me at work.  I flew out to a remote location to repair a sites backups and noticed a failing drive on a file server.  Well, I figured, there's no way it's not in a RAID group so I'll just worry about that later and rebuild the backup system.  To my luck the drive failed and the file server went down.  So I looked at the controller configuration and was appalled to see the array configured as RAID-0.  I had to call my Director and ask the company to wire over $30,000 into a recovery companies checking account.  Yes, you read that right, $30,000.  It took them almost 3 days to recover the data in a lab.  That's what happens when you choose RAID-0 and have no backups.  The benefit to RAID-0 is that the data being written is spread out, evenly, over as many drives as the array has.

 

RAID-0 is cumulative with capacity, so two 1 TB drives would create 2 TB of capacity.

 

Honestly, you would need a controller that supports RAID to configure those drives to operate in any RAID level.  So either your motherboard would need to have an integrated controller to support this, or you would need a RAID card. 

 

So depending on what your goal is will alter my follow up response. :-)

 

I could put it another way... I do this for a living and haven't used RAID at home in *many* years.  It's application is best suited for the enterprise environment.  That doesn't mean other people I work with don't use it at home.  I know a co-worker with vast amounts of family photos that they would never want to see destroyed.  So they purchased an external NAS that supports RAID and run RAID-1 in addition to an online backup solution.

 

Cheers!

 

 



#6 sandman1374

sandman1374

  • Members
  • 65 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids Michigan
  • Local time:03:30 AM

Posted 12 March 2016 - 11:49 PM

Not knowing what you're looking for here but you might consider a quality SSD for the OS (60 to128GB works real well) and current HDDs for data storage.

More reliable and without a doubt much quicker loading etc.

 

You will feel\see a difference. SSD prices are down ($68-$89 for a Samsung) and forget about all the stigma that setting up an SSD is all that involved.

If you have questions or need more info just post back!


Custom, AMD R7 1800x @ 3925MHz. ASUS Crosshair VI Hero, 2 x 8GB G-Skill Flare-X @ 3466MHz 14-13-13-26-1T, Samsung 960 m.2 NVMe OS. Samsung 840 Pro 120GB SSD OC OS. 2TB WD Blck data, 4TB WD Red Storage, EVGA G2 850 PSU, HD7970 3GB w/XSPC Razor WB. EK C6H Monoblock,  D5 Vario, RX360 rad,RS360 rad, EX140 rad, Xigmatek Elysium. Win10 Pro x64, Linksys WRT1900 ACS, Firefox Beta, Avast Free, Malwarebytes Pro, CCleaner,


#7 Cryo7c1

Cryo7c1

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 12 March 2016 - 11:55 PM

Not knowing what you're looking for here but you might consider a quality SSD for the OS (60 to128GB works real well) and current HDDs for data storage.

More reliable and without a doubt much quicker loading etc.

 

You will feel\see a difference. SSD prices are down ($68-$89 for a Samsung) and forget about all the stigma that setting up an SSD is all that involved.

If you have questions or need more info just post back!

 

I'd agree with that.  I replaced the primary SAN for the company I work for with an all flash array.  It's a 35 TB all flash array w/fibre connectivity.  It was far more costly than that but the performance is absolutely amazing. :)

 

I've been a big believer in flash for years.  A cheap flash drive can make an ancient computer behave like a brand new system.


Edited by Cryo7c1, 12 March 2016 - 11:55 PM.


#8 PieLam

PieLam
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 248 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 13 March 2016 - 05:46 PM

Cryo7c1, on 12 Mar 2016 - 11:03 PM, said:

So, first, I'd like to know what your goal for implementing RAID is.  The answer to that would change my recommendation.

 

 

Well, if I had to pick a goal other than I thought that it'd be cool to have, I'd say manageability and redundency.  Of course, reliability is up there too.  After reading the articles I've read, I've pretty much decided against using a RAID for personal use.  In a corporate environment though, this would be a totally different scenario.

As for manageability, I thought managing 1 drive in a RAID-1 versus managing 2 drives W/O a RAID config would've been easier and more straight forward for me.

I was also under the impression that using a RAID config would give me a performance boost.  The articles I read almost dismissed this, however, saying that there was only a marginal performance increase, and only in a few situations.

 

 

You could configure RAID-1, for mirroring, with two drives, to gain resiliency in the event of a drive failure.

 

 

This is what I initially desired.

 

 

This would cut your capacity in half

 

 

I was going to argue, but as it turns out, I had misunderstood what I'd previously read.  :)

 

 

So either your motherboard would need to have an integrated controller to support this, or you would need a RAID card.

 

 

This was to be my next step, (confirming that my MoBo has an integrated RAID controller).  It seens that it does, but I may be getting this mixed-up with another one of my PCs. An expansion card is not desired at this time.

 

 

I do this for a living and haven't used RAID at home in *many* years.  It's application is best suited for the enterprise environment.  That doesn't mean other people I work with don't use it at home.  I know a co-worker with vast amounts of family photos that they would never want to see destroyed.  So they purchased an external NAS that supports RAID and run RAID-1 in addition to an online backup solution.

 

 

That makes me feel a LOT better about my decision to go on W/O using a RAID system.

 

I came to this decision after I learned more about the advantages & disadvantages of using a RAID.

 

Thanx for all your valued input, it really has meant a lot!



#9 PieLam

PieLam
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 248 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 13 March 2016 - 06:28 PM

sandman1374, on 12 Mar 2016 - 11:49 PM, said:

Not knowing what you're looking for here but you might consider a quality SSD for the OS (60 to128GB works real well) and current HDDs for data storage.

 

That is my set-up. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree, Sandman. I neglected to say that my SSD (C:) contains the Win 7 OS.  My boot times are quick compared to my other non-SSD PC!  I also failed to mention its capacity, its a 120 gb.

 

Currently, it's about half full.  With the way Win seems to "grow" over time, & my constant deligeance of not using the C: drive for ANY program installations, I am SO glad my SSD is a 120gb & not a 60 gb.  Although my SSD's free space seems to always be dwindling little by little, it seems that its only a matter of time until I run out of OS space.   :(






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users