Just a couple of comments, although the documentation for any RAID
controller should point a lot of this out.
1) RAID stands for Redundant Array of Individual Disks. There are several
different types of RAID schemes, the most common being the following
RAID 0 - striping data across 2 or more disks
RAID 1 - mirroring data across 2 disks
RAID 5 - striping data across disks, with parity (min of 3 disks).
I could go on here, but realistically, this is what you tend to run
into the most on the market place.
2) For the home user the cheapest, most hassle-free would probably
be RAID 1, or mirroring. Cheap - because you only need one more disk
to do it. Hassle-free - because if you had to you can "break" a "mirror
set" and use the surviving disk alone. If you replace a disk that breaks
the controller will "rebuild" the mirror set when the new disks is put
in.
This can be time consuming (hours if you are also using your machine),
but
at least in the end you have "protected" data again.
3) STAY AWAY from RAID 0. This is simple striping. Think of it this way,
your two 6GB drives are combined into a single 12GB drive (as far as your
operating system is concerned), but the controller "stripes" the data
across the two surfaces in chunks of, let's say, 32K bytes. If you lose
one drive you have a lost ALL your data. Striping is most often done for
(READ) performance.
4) Some good info can be found at:
http://www.compinfo-center.com/stor/raid.htm.
I should also mention that some people would argue with me that RAID 5 is a
better way to go, since you get good READ speeds and slightly more storage
for the $buck. And their arguments are very valid in a lot of
circumstances.
However, for the home user RAID 1 is better because even if the controller
were to break there is at least a chance that the one of the disks can just
be put on the default controller of the mother board.
Cheers,
-ricK7log
-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jerry Flanders
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:26 AM
To: Julian Cleak; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog file concerns
The last motherboards I purchased (in Sept 2002) had RAID capability
built-in. I haven't implemented it (my luck with HDs has been pretty good
over the years), but it is there in some modern motherboards for those who
feel it is helpful. Price for this MB was similar to the others the dealer
had in stock, so the RAID feature had no real extra cost (other than the
price of the additional HD required to make it all work).
RAID has several features, among which is redundant data storage on the
second HD- a single failing HD will not necessarily shut you down. Details
at:
http://www.msi.com.tw/html/e_service/techexpress/tech_column/raid/raid_1.htm
Jerry W4UK
At 10:52 1/28/03 +0000, Julian Cleak wrote:
>Hi Bill
>
>In my limited experience of Computers the two most unreliable components in
>the base unit are the PSU and the HDD, different makes have different
common
>faults.
>Fuji for example have a nasty habit of not being recognised by the system
>bios where as Seagate go into clunking mode, Maxtor drives seen to just
spin
>up and stay running with no access to them. These are just some of the
>problems we get here in the uk. We have tried lots of different
manufactures
>from lots of different suppliers but seems to make no difference. 1 yr
seems
>to be the critical time of operation hear. I did a report to our buyers
>when tenders were due for renewal and our records showed that 78% of HDD
>failures happened within 2 months of being 1 yr old.
>I think that the only answer to the HDD problem is to make regular backups
>and, or fit a second HDD and keep duplicate files. I always tell our
clients
>that we can replace the programme files but the data files can cost up to
>?1000 to retrieve, a CD-RW is about ?30.
>
> Best of Luck
>
> Julian
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Turner" <w7ti@dslextreme.com>
>To: <kk9a@arrl.net>
>Cc: "'WriteLog'" <writelog@contesting.com>
>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog file concerns
>
>
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:07:25 -0000, <kk9a@arrl.net> wrote:
> >
> > >What happens if my hard drive fails?
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> >
> > This isn't quite the answer to your question, but I believe the best
> > solution is not to have a hard drive failure in the first place.
> >
> > HD's are so inexpensive anymore, I think the best medicine is to replace
> > them every couple of years or so before they get to the point of
> > failure. Modern HD's are amazingly reliable - when they are new. I
> > have had a couple of HD crashes in my ten years of computing, and they
> > were both on drives that had several years of use on them. HD's seem to
> > be good for around 3-5 years of ordinary use, so change them every two
> > years or so and you should be ok.
> >
> > Incidentally, there are removable HD fixtures now that allow you to swap
> > a HD in about ten seconds. I just bought several of them on eBay for
> > $6.99 each. Put all your contesting software on a new HD and only use
> > it for contests. Something to think about.
> >
> > 73, Bill W7TI
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WriteLog mailing list
> > WriteLog@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>WriteLog mailing list
>WriteLog@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
|