RAID??

[speedracer]

I have been reading a lot lately about RAID's especially in the review of the 890 & 990 mb's. I am curious as to why one is used. According to what I have read Raid 0 has no redundancy of data but is quick; RAID 1 seems to provide the best redundancy and fault tolerance and RAID 5 (bios selection) is typically used for systems with 3 to 5 drives and multi-user. Currently, I am running an 890FXA-UD5 with F6 bios and one small 500 gig drive for the operating system, programs and misc stuff partitioned into 3 drives <C D E> another physical drive is used for data, downloaded material, etc. , another physical drive is used for video and another physical is used to backup any data, programs, updates etc. that is used in all of the other drives. SO, my questions is IF I were to utilize a RAID wouldn't RAID1 as it has data redundancy and fault tolerance be the most correct choice? Secondly, IF I want to keep these other drives NON RAID wouldn't they need to be connected to connectors 4 & 5 set out in bios as NON RAID or can they be left on their current connectors but NOT selected to be active. IF so will they still remain SATA? IF not, then where would I connect my internal dvd burner/players as these connectors are now being used by hdd's? OR does this mean I would have to buy 2 - 1 or 2 TB drives and then put all the data and everything else (except backup drive) onto these 2 drives? Will the bios allow or is it the raid setup that allows one to select the RAID level 0~5 that is to be created (missed in the writeup if stated there - sorry)? IN the end, what is the advantage of changing from a 'single' hdd setup to a RAID setup for a single user non-server application? Lastly, IF one of the hard drives in the array should fail does this bring my system down or can I run it until I get another replacement drive and will it then 'reload' all the info that the failed drive had so it is now back 100%? As many of you are doing this I am just trying to find out why and if need be I too will change. SORRY for all the questions but to change over is not going to be a 5 minute exercise and want to get as much info as possible before moving forward. . THANKS to any for their responses.....

[zuban]

I'm using raid 1, two samsung f3's, dissapointlingy they are slower in reading performance to a single drive, on my 990fx ud5, not much though, and i am placing data redundency higher than speed so its fine. raid is no guarentee of extra perfomance though, usually only raid 0 is, so best figure out if you really need it or not, i do i am terrible at remembering to back my stuff!

[malum]

Raid 0 provides 0 fault tolerance. If you absolutely value your data then using raid 0
statistically increases the risk of data loss. If one of the drives in the array fails
then you can pretty much say goodbye to all of your important porn,
whoops I mean "Data". Unless you are willing to pay a lot of money to a data
recovery service. And in all reality the typical home user will not see too much
of an increase of performance unless you are moving a lot of big files, maybe
a faster boot-up time, and using large games.

For a home user I would recommend RAID 1 if you value your data over speed.
You won't see too much of a speed increase or decrease. But should one drive fail
then the other hard drive can rebuild and you can use it until you get a replacement
for the failed drive. You might want to keep in mind that you will lose hard drive space
because half of each drive in the raid 1 array is used for data redundancy. For example:
Using two 1 terabyte drives in RAID 1 will only show about 1 terabyte of space because
the other terabyte of space is used for redundancy on both disks.

So to sum it all up: Raid 0 is good for speed which is good for Hard Drive intensive uses like
moving large files around and faster loading times for games. But should one drive
fail then your data is lost. Raid 1 sacrifices some speed, and usable hard drive space, for the
sake of having a more efficient data redundancy.  

I personally would not worry about Raid 10 or Raid 5+1 because those applications are typically
better suited for use in servers.

I hope this helps.  

[autotech]

With Windows 7 back up function Raid 0 is perfect now in reality if one of your drives fail u can get a replacement rebuild ur array and install back up image. As for faults of raid 0 well i have used it for over 8 years and never had a problem try using a raid0 with a Raid 1 back up if you are that parinoid otherwise rely on windows 7 back up.

With most new gigabyte motherboards using raid 0 improves ur speed by up to four times than a regular hard disk and as a matter of fact using a SSD drive is humanly noticeable faster. By specs. Look up the specs and speed of a raid 0 and then a ssd and compare. I have used both and before i spend 500. or more on a 256 gig ssd id put in 2 x 500 gig hard drives in a raid 0 then a 1 terabyte drive for back up images and pictures or whatever.

In other words it is what you want from your computer and how much you want to spend.

[malum]

In other words it is what you want from your computer and how much you want to spend.

Agreed. 

If you can afford a SSD then that is the way to go for speed and reliability.
Be prepared to tweak Windows if you go that route though. Its not that much tweaking
but it is something to be aware of.

As far as Windows handling raid 0 I wouldn't recommend that because it is not the most
efficient setup. And for the typical home user its probably not worth the trouble.   

[blackie]

"You might want to keep in mind that you will lose hard drive space because half of each drive in the raid 1 array is used for data redundancy."

Is this correct? It is my understanding that there is NO loss of space on EACH drive - there is no need for redundancy on each drive because the data is duplicated on the other drive. It is true that with two 1 GB drives (2 GB total) you only have 1 GB usable because the second drive contains EXACTLY the same data as the first.

[Dark Mantis]

"You might want to keep in mind that you will lose hard drive space because half of each drive in the raid 1 array is used for data redundancy."

Is this correct? It is my understanding that there is NO loss of space on EACH drive - there is no need for redundancy on each drive because the data is duplicated on the other drive. It is true that with two 1 GB drives (2 GB total) you only have 1 GB usable because the second drive contains EXACTLY the same data as the first.

Yes that is in fact how it works as there would be no point in having the redundancy on the same drive as if a total failure happened all your backup would be gone too.

[autotech]

looked up some specs. this is for a sata 2 ssd 256 gig drive.

Sustained Sequential Read Up to 250MB/s
Sustained Sequential Write Up to 170MB/s


Sustained Sequential Read  MY raid 0 is  187 MB/s
Sustained Sequential Write  MY raid 0 is  138 MB/s

As you see that is pretty close in numbers you would see the best difference in boot times I boot in 45 seconds and have read that is quick as ssd in windows 7 so most difference is in opening a program.

Most home users that are not game oriented use a single hard drive and one to back up to for pictures and so on. 80% of gamers use Raid0 with 10% using SSD.  I like my raid 0 and wont ever go back to using a single drive again unless it is a ssd and right now they are to pricey per gig.

As for the amount of trouble my raid) gives me during set up it adds about 1 minute to the process before i install windows, As for the amount of trouble it has caused me after set up and install of all programs it equals 0%. Dont be scared of using raid0 it is easy and fast and no trouble at all.

[absic]

The biggest reason for a RAID array to fail, is down to the choice of HDD's.

It is worth spending a little bit more on good "Enterprise" drives and not try and save money by getting the cheapest.

[malum]

As for the amount of trouble my raid) gives me during set up it adds about 1 minute to the process before i install windows, As for the amount of trouble it has caused me after set up and install of all programs it equals 0%. Dont be scared of using raid0 it is easy and fast and no trouble at all.

Yes. I wasn't clear with my statement of raid 0 being trouble. Its really not that much trouble
to do and is easy to implement.  It is definatley also worth it for games/photoshop/Audio Software like
 Sonar/Pro Tools/(and my fav Reaper). Really the only trouble is If one of the drives fail. And it can
be a big problem if you  had any data on the array that was valuable to you.

The biggest reason for a RAID array to fail, is down to the choice of HDD's.

It is worth spending a little bit more on good "Enterprise" drives and not try and save money by getting the cheapest.

 
Yep!

I use WD Caviar Black Drives currently because I have had nothing but good experiences with Western Digital in the past ten years.
I'm not quite upto buying the enterprise class drives yet. But as time goes on I will probably use them in the next couple years as more
and more information becomes infinitely more valuable to me.

[autotech]

Yeah i use 2 x 500 gig westren digital 7200 rpm drives and the ud5 gigabyte motherboard so far i have been impressed with it. I wanted to get the 990fx but i have the 890fx and so in no hurry till they get the problems with the under volts figured out and beside the new am3+ chips havent hit the market if they do and the 990fx isnt fixed not sure where i will go next.

[rickg]

I am having raid problems with a previously fine functioning system:  I swapped in new hardrives: 2x W.D. velociraptor sata 3gs @ 150 gb. running in raid-0 configuration.  I believe they were properly configured in bios.   Windows-7 installation does not see the drive and can not install.  I used the option of: "load driver" I located a driver both on the M.B. dirver/utilities disk and a new version downloaded for gygabyte site. In each case the dirver is aparently successfully because Windows-7 install then sees the drive as 277.5gb drive: 0 unallocated space.  Alas, there is still a exclaimation mark in the yellow triangle at bottom of screen with the statement: windows can not install to this drive." I have removed the raid configuration and successfully installed windows-7 on each of these drives individually, therefore, I am satisfied that the drives are each functioning properly.


GA890fxa-du7 rev.2
amd phenom 6 core
8gig crucial ram
xfx radion hd 5790 dual gpu/2gig

[absic]

@rickg:

You may find this thread helpful in setting up a RAID array: http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php/topic,3619.0.html Pages 14-16 I go through setting up a RAID0 Array in some detail. Although the motherboard is the GA-890FXA-UD5 the set-up procedure should be the same for your board.

[zuban]

i wouldnt want to wait for a windows backup schedule, tbh i can go through hundreds of iterations of 3d models in one sitting hence why to me raid 1 is critical, if i left it to backup, and my drive failed before that i could lose data that i simply cannot recreate, speed is of less importance, and space is a non issue, it really comes down to what you want, when i have a bit more money i may revisit my raid setup and expand it, so i have a tb or so for my os and games on raid 0 for speed and a redundant array for my 3d work so the i can have best of both. I have faith in my samsung f3's i did plenty of research to find they are good drives, but i also for a living am a system administrator of sorts for 170+ servers and i have enterprise class hard drives replaced very often, average one every one to two weeks, probably not a bad average given the amount we have and thankfully the various raid setups we use, raid 1 for os, raid 5 for data, means we simply pull a drive out and plug another in. its all about how much you value your data

[autotech]

Well i will admit raid 0 isnt for everyone and neither is windows backup, although i find raid 0 good for me and wouldn't do any other way at this time unless i could get a 256 ssd for about 150. which isn't going to happen anytime soon. As for windows backup i do it about once a month and has saved me numerious times.

I can see why it wouldnt work for you zuban though maybe a raid 0/1 setup might work, Again it is up to the persons need. I have found that absic's guide to raid on the GA-890FXA-UD5  in depth enough to help the new user and anyone wanting to try it.