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.


Raid 1 W/2 Disks Vs. Raid 5 W/3 Disks Vs. Raid 10 W/4 Disks

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 jettatore


  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Local time:08:42 PM

Posted 21 April 2007 - 01:52 PM

I need a backup solution, I'll be using the following motherboard and disks.


In Raid 1 w/2 Disks. It's easy to fix. No performance boost. Perfectly content with this as a pure backup solution.

In Raid 5 w/3 Disks. It's a little more tricky but I'd be perfectly fine backing up my stuff and starting over, once the disk is replaced, if the Raid cannot be rebuilt after failure. That is, if there is a good performance incentive for both the added trickiness as well as the cost of a 3rd HDD ($90).

In Raid 10 w/4 Disks. It seems simple enough but now there's two extra HDD's to buy. Again here the only reason I'd do this is for nice a performance boost over Raid 5.

My uses will primarily be 3D Modeling/Animation, Photoshop and some casual gaming. So, Performance boost wise, what am I looking at between these three scenarios. Thank you very much in advance -Derek

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 oldf@rt


  • Members
  • 2,609 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avondale, Arizona USA
  • Local time:05:42 PM

Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:21 PM

In RAID 10 vs RAID 5, not much performance difference.

I would still use all 4 disks for a raid 5, which would leave you connections for two more.

3 disks for data, 1 for parity. Just dont forget to get a large enough power supply, plan for the future.

Did a quick look at newegg, check this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822148144

costs a little bit more with four drives, but data transfer will go up and storage will increase above your raid 5 config.

Edited by oldf@rt, 21 April 2007 - 02:28 PM.

The name says it all -- 59 and holding permanently

**WARNING** Links I provide might cause brain damage

#3 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:03:42 AM

Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:32 PM

Almost nothing with any of them.

Example with RAID 0, basically same thing as in RAID 10, but without the back-up part:
Time in seconds
				 HL2 level load time   File compression (602MB)   File copy (7.55GB)
Single drive	 34.4				  302						101  
RAID 0		   34.1				  301						103
If you had a hardware RAID controller, the situation would look better. The software RAID controllers (the ones found on motherboards) aren't really good, but they do double the CPU utilization. You might see better results if you stuck all four hard drives in a RAID 0, but that kind of screws up the back-up part.
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#4 T


  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • Local time:08:42 PM

Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:41 PM

Frankly, I think you would be better off with a raid 0 of a few drives (say 3 or so) then one drive just used for incremental backups. Frankly, there isn't a huge benefit with having a raid 1 if your drives aren't in a high usage situation where one is likely to fail, since if data gets corrupted (far more common than a drive failing) all raid 1 drives will have the same corrupted data on them, which doesn't help at all. An incremental backup could save your data from about a week back, so as long as you notice within a week, you'll be able to recover your data. Also, you get the performance of raid 0 with a nice backup as well. But, it would be expensive, because without some incredible compression the incremental would take up quite a bit of space after a while.

Edited by T, 22 April 2007 - 08:44 PM.

Posted Image

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users