G-RAID vs. G-RAID2

From what I have read on this forum, the G-RAID performs much better than the G-RAID2. So would you all recommend that I order the G-RAID instead. It just seems odd buying an older product.
Jared

The G-Raid 2s can't be daisy chained reliably. Drive performance drops considerably...from 65MB/s to 16MB/s. The Original G-Raids don't have this issue.
But, it might be hard finding an original G-Raid.
Shane

Similar Messages

MSI KT3 ultra aru Western Digital 200GB raid problem

Hi!
This is what I've got.
KT3 Ultra-ARU (MS-6380E)
AMD 2000+
256 MB 333mhz RAM (AMD Compatible)
Seagate ST330630A 30GB (an old drive)
Maxtor 6L080J4 80GB
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus9 6Y080L0 80Gb 7200rpm 2Mb UDMA133 Fluid IDE
Western Digital Caviar WD1800JB 180Gb 7200rpm Special Edition UDMA100 IDE
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB 200Gb 7200rpm Special Edition UDMA100 IDE
Promise 100 IDE-controller
Creative Geforce MX 440
Lite-on LTR-40125W
NEC ND-1300 DVD
And the configuration:
IDE1: Seagate (Master)
IDE2: WD1800BG (Cabel Select)
IDE3(Raid1): Maxtor 6LO80J4 (Master) and Maxtor 6Y080L0 (Slave) raided as an single drive
IDE4(Raid2): WD2000JB (Cable Select)
IDE5(IDE-controller1):
IDE6(IDE-controller2): NEC ND-1300 (Master) and Lite-on LTR-40125W (Slave)
And the Software:
I've updated all the software drivers so I've got the newest and I'm currently runnign Win2k SP3 with almost every patch installed on it.
And finally the problem:
When I've hook my WD2000JB to the on-board raid everything seems to be working normaly. The bios finds the drive and makes a new array. Win2k boots up and finds the drive and I can create an partition. But when I've try to format it it the computer starts to freeze for a while and then acts like normal again. The HDD-led blinks as it should during the "normal" time, but when the comp. freezes it stops blinking. The formatation stops at 7% and the HDD-led stops lighting. I don't get an error eventhough it was several hours since it stoped. And the formatation takes like 30min for 1%.
When I connect the WD2000JB to the IDE3 I can format it and it acts just like normal. I even did a full system test with the System tool found on Western Digitals support site and it didn't find any errors. But when move it to the raid-IDE the errors return. I've get Error reading / writing to disk and when I've did a chkdsk I've got the "Coudn't use Device) so I did a scandisk and it found very very many errors so it completly ereased everything that was on it.
And when I've run Western Digitals program again i've get an error (Disk error read/writing) error code: 0113.
Can it be that the Western Disk doesn't work well with Raid? I've haven't heard anything about that, so...
Best regars,
Mathias

You can have a look at my hardware below...
Chassis: Antec 1080B (300w PSU / 180w COMBINED)
Mainboard: MSI KT3 Ultra ARU
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1800+
Display: ABIT Siluro GF4 Ti4200 AGP 4X
DVD/CD-RW Combo: HL-DT-ST RW/DVD GCC-4120B
Floppy: Panasonic 1.44MB
HD: Quantum Fireball Plus/AS 30.0GB UDMA 100
Keyboard: Microsoft Internet Keyboard Pro
Monitor: KDS Visual Sensations VS-190
Mouse: Microsoft USB Wheel Mouse Optical
NICs: 3Com 3C900B / DLink DFE-530TX
RAM: Micron DDR 266MHz (2x256MB DIMMs)
Sound: Avance AC'97 Audio
I've had similar problems where my system becomes very unstable at higher bus speeds. Installing Windows XP simply didn't work very good. However, I have ordered a new PSU today as a solution to this problem. Basically, CPUs and video cards are much more demanding and the more devices you have in your computer the more power you're going to need. I recommend purchasing the Enermax EG465P-VE (FCA) 450W ATX PS. It has a higher amperage rating and will most likely solve your problem.
Check your PSU and your bus speed settings...

RAID 0 Roaming Disk Problem - Way To Recover?

I have the problem generally described in this archieved thread [RAID 0|discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2041271&tstart=-3] and will describe it below, the thread is more for point of reference.
A few days ago the RAID went down (RAID 0)along the same lines described in this thread [RAID Error|http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2141573&tstart=0]
which in a nutshell, threw this error
Drive 3:5000cca349e4743d missing - Replace immediately or acknowledge loss of RAID set RS1 and associated volumes.
I immediatelly pulled out all the hard drives and cloned them in external hardware enclosures. At that point none of the drives had a fail message. During putting the drives back in I noticed that a drive sled looked slightly warped and would not fit back in properly. When the sled was in the drive would not show up, although two of the drives appeared as "roaming."
Got new sleds, and put the drives in. Could not get it the machine to boot in Safe Mode or properly from an external drive which was hooked up via Firewire (This was the system drive at the time of the freeze. It showed up as bootable when holding down the option key) or the clone of that system when placed in the machine. (I was on the phone for awhile with Apple Tach Support, and by the end it seemed it was a RAID card issue.) So I made an appointment for the Apple Genius Bar. I pulled out the old system drive with data, images and the rest and did a bare bones install of 10.5.1 (which came with the machine) and rebooted before bringing it into the Store, and the computer booted fine.
The "problem" RAID set was paritioned into two volumes. On my reboot after the install of the OS (and without using the RAID Utility to change anything, the RAID drives were simply in their bays), the two volumes are still there, sort of, as R2V1 and R2V2. Additionally all the drives SMART Status and RAID status are fine. One of the three drives is roaming however,
was and is being reported as RS1. Additionally, each of the drives in the RAID reports SMART status as fine, and each of the three drives report a RAID status of good. Additionally the RAID 0 had two volumes and both are reported currently as R2V1 and R2V2 and as being "good" and one of the drives has status of roaming. This is the furthest I have gotten trying to save this. I did not want to shut down the machine on the off chance that there is something else I can do right now before bringing the machine into the store.
The following pictures may make it easier to follow
!http://www.dvdstepbystep.com/Raid2.jpg!
!http://www.dvdstepbystep.com/raid.jpg!
The tower is an Early 2008 tower and I upgraded the firmware on the RAID card with the newest firmware, which required 10.5.8. The base install is back to 10.5.1 on the reboot after reinstall. I am also waiting to hear back from tech support.
Didn't realize the Apple RAID Card had a bad rep until this happened. Sheesh. Missed that one
But if there is anything to try right now, it would be great.

A A P L wrote:
Good luck.
Thanks
I know that I have been pretty happy, and when I did lose one drive, it did what it was supposed to do.
I did have it RAID 5 at one point, but set it up for internal RAID 0 for the renders, and it has been fine for a long time. Urgh.
Early on, there were battery warnings all the time, and the battery did not charge unless the Mac was ON, which was totally stupid.
Hmmm, sounds alot like mine there.
I found that out two Christmas vacations ago when we do our two-week shutdown.
Came back in, and could not use the Mac for two days while it charged.
They've since changed it, and thankfully, it's been good since.
Good luck, let us know how the new card works out.
SB
Thanks again and will do. Bought a bunch more hard drives and if it comes back, the first thing I do is back up the 2+ Terrabytes plus of renders (all ongoing projects), slap new drives into the tower, make it RAID 5 and to heck with the hit on speed. Have enough externals to reconfigure things, now just keeping fingers crossed

Raid Admin on 2nd ethernet controller, is firmware safe?

Hi,
Have an XRAID and am having problems using the Admin util to configure new set of drives. Admin util does not work with gathering the right info and letting me make changes.
BACKGROUND=
Was initially built with 7 drives in the first controller and used for editing. Built fine RAID5, in use for several months. Network monitoring port is not connected and was only used during setup. No changes to ip's were made.
Several months later (that being now). We need to the second controller for a seperate host. Aquired 7 drives, physically inserted them into the XRAID, lights went red then green. All green lights.
Went to configure. Connected ethernet monitor port on the 2ND controller (never before used) to a hub and a machine used to configure / run RAIDAdmin. Finds it via rendezvous / bonjour (whatever they call it) connect to it. Admin says Gathering info and hangs.
Lights show up in RAIDAdmin as orange | red | nothing | red
It gives me some info such as location, and event log. Can view event log back several weeks etc. However it does NOT give me any info on drives, luns, hardware nothing.. shows the drives as not installed. Including the 7 on the left which are currently operational.
tried restarting raid2 controller. Made changes to ip etc which did not save either.
Then tried the other top ethernet port, the used on the first install. Could not be found running via the admin util. Tried tcpdumping the hub and finding what ip but there was nothing. Tried putting a dhcp server on the network nothing.
BACKGROUND-
Am I doing something wrong? The big question I have at this stage is doing the firmware upgrade to 1.5 safe?. Its the last thing I havnt done. Its still the same as out of the box.
How likely is it to succeed updating for one. Two for fixing my problem with not being able to admin the raid. What possible problems could i be faced with, the READ ME FIRST makes no mention of dangers such as the RAID being destroyed etc. or is that not a possibility? I do not want to affect the current RAID on controller 1.
p.s sorry if its long winded. like to give details. thanks.

I imagine that its some web server/ snmp thing that runs on the xraid and just binds to both ips to allow access. The first one, say eth0 i used when i first set it up and worked fine and have tried it periodically to check things. This one now doesnt work as far as i cant find the ip it has or connect to it. Lights on back are fine. No traffic on hub though.
2nd one, call it eth1. the one ive first started using now is its first use as far as i recall. It is the one that half works that just keeps trying to gather info and not get anywhere.
I might try running the RAIDAdmin on another monitor system. The more I think about it im just not sure if its the management bit or the monitoring system. The monitoring system is the same as the one used previously.
I do not look forward to having to recover terabytes

G Raid Won't Mount

Hi,
Yesterday I plugged in my 1TB G Raid into my MacBook Pro, which runs 10.5.8 (I have a new Retna computer but as I need Avid, I have to use my old one). The G Raid and the smaller External drive I daisy-chained to it mounted up fine and ran all day. I shut it off and the computer at the end of the day, no problems with disconnect or anything.
Now today, I've turned everything on and the daisy-chain seems to be working, the smaller Ext. Drive shows up but my main, 1 TB Drive will not. I saw in other posts to try and use the USB cable, which I am doing right now and no go. The drive starts up, makes all the right sounds and the light is on but there is no drive on my desktop or in the Disk Utilities.
Suggestions???

If Disk Utility and Disk Warrior do not see the drive there is little you can do. Keep trying to get it to mount and *be prepared to get everything off at the moment it connects* - then run Disk Utility and Disk Warrior
I had a g-raid2 500 that would intermittently fail to mount. It made strange sounds when it booted - like one disk was having a hard time getting up to speed. If I left it running sometimes it would eventually show up. Sometimes restarting it would get it to show up.
I'd be willing to bet you'll be sending it back to G-Technology. Call them and get into their repair pipeline. I will say my experience with their service was very frustrating. So much so I won't purchase another drive from them.
I hope your experience is better.
Good luck,
x

Upgrading my existing RAID to higher capacity drives

Hi all,
I currently have two 500GB drives as a RAID 1 (through Disk Utility) in my mid-2007 Mac Pro 8-core, and I'm starting to get a little tight on space. I'd like to up the capacity by replacing the existing 500GB drives with at least 1TB drives, but with all four drive bays currently filled, I'm not sure how to go about this... but after reading through some threads here, I might have plan.
Would this be the best course of action?
1) Remove one of the 500GB RAID drives.
2) Delete the RAID set in Disk Utility.
3) Install new 1TB+ drive
4) Clone the remaining 500GB RAID drive to the new 1TB+ one.
5) Remove remaining 500GB RAID drive, install new matching 1TB+ drive
6) Create new RAID set in Disk Utility
It seems a little roundabout, but sounds like it would work. Any thoughts, or better ways of going about doing this?
Thanks,
Jeff

There are three obscure sources for the documentation. Bear with me. I have tried to focus narrowly on helpful documents that I actually used to do this, not baffle you with B.S.:
1) Man pages for the Terminal diskutil command:
try this link or use the procedure below:
Mac OS X Reference Library: diskutil(8) Manual page
.OR.
Start Terminal.
type man diskutil
The problem with this document alone is there is no background information, no discussion of what you are actually doing, and no examples.
You will want to look at the options for the diskutil createRAID.
Once this drive is created and populated with your data, you can use diskutil to rebuild onto the second drive, but frankly it is easier and more confidence-inspiring to use Disk Utility.
2) Server Admin Command-Line Administration Manuals:
Introduction to Command-Line Administration : Version 10.6 Snow Leopard
This is a broad introduction to using the command-line. Many parts apply perfectly well to Mac OS X non-server. It lacks the specific diskutil chapter featured in the previous version:
Command-Line Administration :For Version 10.5 Leopard
see chapter 7, "Working with Disks and Volumes" for specific examples. I printed chapter 7 out to use as a reference. As far as I know, this applies perfectly well in 10.6. This is also a little terse, and short on examples.
3) afp548 (a Mac OS X Server discussion/help site) articles discussing RAID2 ( introduced at 10.4 Tiger):
afp548: Apple RAID2 In Depth
and a slightly older article on Rebuilding a RAID Mirror with diskutil command-line:
afp548: How to Build a RAID Mirror Without a Re-Format
The examples in the second article show only the older Apple Partition Table (rather than GUID) partition maps, but the fundamental info is still good.
Message was edited by: Grant Bennet-Alder

NEW G-Raid 2

Is anybody here that can answer me few questions about new G-Raid 2? Did anybody try it yet? I already emailed to G-Tech Support but I have no answer from them.
This is what I asked them:
“I am decided to buy G-RAID 2, for DV video editing on a Mac OS platform, but I have few questions:
1) Did you fix the previous problem? (unmounting, etc)
2) What kind of HD do you use for G-RAID2? What brand?
3) Will you make the Stealth version soon? Is Titanium any better? I am worried about heating issues.”
Thank,
Dan

Sorry, I missed the point.
It means this (here's what G-Tech told me):
1) The un-mounting issue has been resolved. If you have any old product with this issue, please let us know... and we can fix it immediately. We located the issue, and it was resolved on new product months ago. The GRAID2 works great;-)
2) Yes, we use only Hitachi drives. They are the only ones that pass all our tests.
3) As for the stealth version, there were not performance or heating differences between the two units. We are currently considering bringing back the stealth units, but no commitments have been made as of yet.

Xserve RAID - to slow during video capture

I have Xserve RAID with 14 drives in 2 stripes ( 2x7 drives ) in RAID5. I can see in my system two "drives" called RAID1 & RAID2 - each 2.18TB.
When I`m using BlackMagic Disk Speed test utility I have only 150MB/s read and 100MB/s write which is to slow for 1080i HD.
What is wrong ? What should I do to get better performance ?
I`m new in Xserve so maybe somebody could explaine me "step by step" what to do.
I read a little about RAID50 but I have no idea how to create it.
Regards.
Rafal Szermanowicz
www.grupa13.com

Those speeds are fast enough for HD capture.
Anyway, to ensure you're getting full speed, make sure:
1) You have the 1.5 firmware on the RAID
2) Enable controller write cache is checked (enabled)
3) Use drive cache is checked (enabled)
4) Allow host cache flushing is DISABLED (unchecked)
5) Use steady streaming mode is DISABLED (unchecke)
For capture, leaving the settings at 8 stripes as prefetch is probably best. If you are going to be doing extensive playback of uncompressed HD, you may want to consider setting the prefetch at 128 stripes.

Disk Utility : Partition / Raid or Raid / Partition ?

I have two external USB drives that I'm attempting to set up using Disk Utility.
I'd like to create either
- one RAID1 set with two partitions, or
- two RAID1 sets with one partition
however I'm not having much luck with either option. Is either scenario possible?

After some experimentation, I seem to have come up with a kludge ...
Partition both disks into identical volumes (A1 = B1, A2 = B2)
Using Disk Utility :
- create RAID Set 1 ( A1 + B1 = RAID1)
- create RAID Set 1 ( A2 + B2 = RAID2)
Error message 'Creating RAID set failed'
Restart ...
Using Disk Utility :
- click on partition A2 (now renamed RAID Slice)
- Erase partition
Upon erasing the partition / RAID slice will remount and the Disk Utility should show two RAID sets. A cursory examination of each RAID set's behavior leads me to believe it is simply a bug in Disk Utility that prevents the creation of two RAID sets on the same disk pair.

About the new G-Raid 2

Is anybody here that can answer me few questions about new G-Raid 2? Did anybody try it yet? I already emailed to G-Tech Support but I have no answer from them.
This is what I asked them:
“I am decided to buy G-RAID 2, for DV video editing on a Mac OS platform, but I have few questions:
1) Did you fix the previous problem? (unmounting, etc)
2) What kind of HD do you use for G-RAID2? What brand?
3) Will you make the Stealth version soon? Is Titanium any better? I am worried about heating issues.”

answered

How to: make one or two partions at a raid system?

Hey
how can i make one or more a partions at a raid system?
i will make the partions at a 250gb raid. one with 120gb for the bootsector, and the other for documents, etc.
is there a hwo to anywhere? dont find one?
please read my second question.... 2 raids at one mac pro?
regarads

O.K., i was looking the hole day to get that partions on a raid working.
to make the partions on each HD with the same volume, this is no problem. when you then create the first raid, works fine. but when you make the second raid, you get a massage, that this raid is not found.
then you see both raids at the disc utilty, but only at the first you seen the volumen down under, by the second not. the first works, the second is not avabiele.
so, now i have only one big mirrowed raid for my boot sector, and its runs fast, quick and without big noise... thats what i want, and the second big raid for my files.
2 raids at one mac pro with 4 hd. one with 2 x 250 gb hd for the bootsector, and the other with 2 x 500gb for files
thx to all, and you kappy
regards

To RAID or not to RAID, that is the question

People often ask: Should I raid my disks?
The question is simple, unfortunately the answer is not. So here I'm going to give you another guide to help you decide when a raid array is advantageous and how to go about it. Notice that this guide also applies to SSD's, with the expection of the parts about mechanical failure.
What is a RAID?
RAID is the acronym for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". The concept originated at the University of Berkely in 1987 and was intended to create large storage capacity with smaller disks without the need for very expensive and reliable disks, that were very expensive at that time, often a tenfold of smaller disks. Today prices of hard disks have fallen so much that it often is more attractive to buy a single 1 TB disk than two 500 GB disks. That is the reason that today RAID is often described as "Redundant Array of Independent Disks".
The idea behind RAID is to have a number of disks co-operate in such a way that it looks like one big disk. Note that 'Spanning' is not in any way comparable to RAID, it is just a way, like inverse partitioning, to extend the base partition to use multiple disks, without changing the method of reading and writing to that extended partition.
Why use a RAID?
Now with these lower disks prices today, why would a video editor consider a raid array? There are two reasons:
1. Redundancy (or security)
2. Performance
Notice that it can be a combination of both reasons, it is not an 'either/or' reason.
Does a video editor need RAID?
No, if the above two reasons, redundancy and performance are not relevant. Yes if either or both reasons are relevant.
Re 1. Redundancy
Every mechanical disk will eventually fail, sometimes on the first day of use, sometimes only after several years of usage. When that happens, all data on that disk are lost and the only solution is to get a new disk and recreate the data from a backup (if you have one) or through tedious and time-consuming work. If that does not bother you and you can spare the time to recreate the data that were lost, then redundancy is not an issue for you. Keep in mind that disk failures often occur at inconvenient moments, on a weekend when the shops are closed and you can't get a replacement disk, or when you have a tight deadline.
Re 2. Performance
Opponents of RAID will often say that any modern disk is fast enough for video editing and they are right, but only to a certain extent. As fill rates of disks go up, performance goes down, sometimes by 50%. As the number of disk activities on the disk go up , like accessing (reading or writing) pagefile, media cache, previews, media, project file, output file, performance goes down the drain. The more tracks you have in your project, the more strain is put on your disk. 10 tracks require 10 times the bandwidth of a single track. The more applications you have open, the more your pagefile is used. This is especially apparent on systems with limited memory.
The following chart shows how fill rates on a single disk will impact performance:
Remember that I said previously the idea behind RAID is to have a number of disks co-operate in such a way that it looks like one big disk. That means a RAID will not fill up as fast as a single disk and not experience the same performance degradation.
RAID basics
Now that we have established the reasons why people may consider RAID, let's have a look at some of the basics.
Single or Multiple?
There are three methods to configure a RAID array: mirroring, striping and parity check. These are called levels and levels are subdivided in single or multiple levels, depending on the method used. A single level RAID0 is striping only and a multiple level RAID15 is a combination of mirroring (1) and parity check (5). Multiple levels are designated by combining two single levels, like a multiple RAID10, which is a combination of single level RAID0 with a single level RAID1.
Hardware or Software?
The difference is quite simple: hardware RAID controllers have their own processor and usually their own cache. Software RAID controllers use the CPU and the RAM on the motherboard. Hardware controllers are faster but also more expensive. For RAID levels without parity check like Raid0, Raid1 and Raid10 software controllers are quite good with a fast PC.
The common Promise and Highpoint cards are all software controllers that (mis)use the CPU and RAM memory. Real hardware RAID controllers all use their own IOP (I/O Processor) and cache (ever wondered why these hardware controllers are expensive?).
There are two kinds of software RAID's. One is controlled by the BIOS/drivers (like Promise/Highpoint) and the other is solely OS dependent. The first kind can be booted from, the second one can only be accessed after the OS has started. In performance terms they do not differ significantly.
For the technically inclined: Cluster size, Block size and Chunk size
In short: Cluster size applies to the partition and Block or Stripe size applies to the array.
With a cluster size of 4 KB, data are distributed across the partition in 4 KB parts. Suppose you have a 10 KB file, three full clusters will be occupied: 4 KB - 4 KB - 2 KB. The remaining 2 KB is called slackspace and can not be used by other files. With a block size (stripe) of 64 KB, data are distributed across the array disks in 64 KB parts. Suppose you have a 200 KB file, the first part of 64 KB is located on disk A, the second 64 KB is located on disk B, the third 64 KB is located on disk C and the remaining 8 KB on disk D. Here there is no slackspace, because the block size is subdivided into clusters. When working with audio/video material a large block size is faster than smaller block size. Working with smaller files a smaller block size is preferred.
Sometimes you have an option to set 'Chunk size', depending on the controller. It is the minimal size of a data request from the controller to a disk in the array and only useful when striping is used. Suppose you have a block size of 16 KB and you want to read a 1 MB file. The controller needs to read 64 times a block of 16 KB. With a chunk size of 32 KB the first two blocks will be read from the first disk, the next two blocks from the next disk, and so on. If the chunk size is 128 KB. the first 8 blocks will be read from the first disk, the next 8 block from the second disk, etcetera. Smaller chunks are advisable with smaller filer, larger chunks are better for larger (audio/video) files.
RAID Levels
For a full explanation of various RAID levels, look here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00/html
What are the benefits of each RAID level for video editing and what are the risks and benefits of each level to help you achieve better redundancy and/or better performance? I will try to summarize them below.
RAID0
The Band AID of RAID. There is no redundancy! There is a risk of losing all data that is a multiplier of the number of disks in the array. A 2 disk array carries twice the risk over a single disk, a X disk array carries X times the risk of losing it all.
A RAID0 is perfectly OK for data that you will not worry about if you lose them. Like pagefile, media cache, previews or rendered files. It may be a hassle if you have media files on it, because it requires recapturing, but not the end-of-the-world. It will be disastrous for project files.
Performance wise a RAID0 is almost X times as fast as a single disk, X being the number of disks in the array.
RAID1
The RAID level for the paranoid. It gives no performance gain whatsoever. It gives you redundancy, at the cost of a disk. If you are meticulous about backups and make them all the time, RAID1 may be a better solution, because you can never forget to make a backup, you can restore instantly. Remember backups require a disk as well. This RAID1 level can only be advised for the C drive IMO if you do not have any trust in the reliability of modern-day disks. It is of no use for video editing.
RAID3
The RAID level for video editors. There is redundancy! There is only a small performance hit when rebuilding an array after a disk failure due to the dedicated parity disk. There is quite a perfomance gain achieveable, but the drawback is that it requires a hardware controller from Areca. You could do worse, but apart from it being the Rolls-Royce amongst the hardware controllers, it is expensive like the car.
Performance wise it will achieve around 85% (X-1) on reads and 60% (X-1) on writes over a single disk with X being the number of disks in the array. So with a 6 disk array in RAID3, you get around 0.85x (6-1) = 425% the performance of a single disk on reads and 300% on writes.
RAID5 & RAID6
The RAID level for non-video applications with distributed parity. This makes for a somewhat severe hit in performance in case of a disk failure. The double parity in RAID6 makes it ideal for NAS applications.
The performance gain is slightly lower than with a RAID3. RAID6 requires a dedicated hardware controller, RAID5 can be run on a software controller but the CPU overhead negates to a large extent the performance gain.
RAID10
The RAID level for paranoids in a hurry. It delivers the same redundancy as RAID 1, but since it is a multilevel RAID, combined with a RAID0, delivers twice the performance of a single disk at four times the cost, apart from the controller. The main advantage is that you can have two disk failures at the same time without losing data, but what are the chances of that happening?
RAID30, 50 & 60
Just striped arrays of RAID 3, 5 or 6 which doubles the speed while keeping redundancy at the same level.
EXTRAS
RAID level 0 is striping, RAID level 1 is mirroring and RAID levels 3, 5 & 6 are parity check methods. For parity check methods, dedicated controllers offer the possibility of defining a hot-spare disk. A hot-spare disk is an extra disk that does not belong to the array, but is instantly available to take over from a failed disk in the array. Suppose you have a 6 disk RAID3 array with a single hot-spare disk and assume one disk fails. What happens? The data on the failed disk can be reconstructed in the background, while you keep working with negligeable impact on performance, to the hot-spare. In mere minutes your system is back at the performance level you were before the disk failure. Sometime later you take out the failed drive, replace it for a new drive and define that as the new hot-spare.
As stated earlier, dedicated hardware controllers use their own IOP and their own cache instead of using the memory on the mobo. The larger the cache on the controller, the better the performance, but the main benefits of cache memory are when handling random R+W activities. For sequential activities, like with video editing it does not pay to use more than 2 GB of cache maximum.
REDUNDANCY(or security)
Not using RAID entails the risk of a drive failing and losing all data. The same applies to using RAID0 (or better said AID0), only multiplied by the number of disks in the array.
RAID1 or 10 overcomes that risk by offering a mirror, an instant backup in case of failure at high cost.
RAID3, 5 or 6 offers protection for disk failure by reconstructing the lost data in the background (1 disk for RAID3 & 5, 2 disks for RAID6) while continuing your work. This is even enhanced by the use of hot-spares (a double assurance).
PERFORMANCE
RAID0 offers the best performance increase over a single disk, followed by RAID3, then RAID5 amd finally RAID6. RAID1 does not offer any performance increase.
Hardware RAID controllers offer the best performance and the best options (like adjustable block/stripe size and hot-spares), but they are costly.
SUMMARY
If you only have 3 or 4 disks in total, forget about RAID. Set them up as individual disks, or the better alternative, get more disks for better redundancy and better performance. What does it cost today to buy an extra disk when compared to the downtime you have when a single disk fails?
If you have room for at least 4 or more disks, apart from the OS disk, consider a RAID3 if you have an Areca controller, otherwise consider a RAID5.
If you have even more disks, consider a multilevel array by striping a parity check array to form a RAID30, 50 or 60.
If you can afford the investment get an Areca controller with battery backup module (BBM) and 2 GB of cache. Avoid as much as possible the use of software raids, especially under Windows if you can.
RAID, if properly configured will give you added redundancy (or security) to protect you from disk failure while you can continue working and will give you increased performance.
Look carefully at this chart to see what a properly configured RAID can do to performance and compare it to the earlier single disk chart to see the performance difference, while taking into consideration that you can have one disks (in each array) fail at the same time without data loss:
Hope this helps in deciding whether RAID is worthwhile for you.
WARNING: If you have a power outage without a UPS, all bets are off.
A power outage can destroy the contents of all your disks if you don't have a proper UPS. A BBM may not be sufficient to help in that case.

Harm,
thanks for your comment.
Your understanding was absolutely right.
Sorry my mistake its QNAP 639 PRO, populated with 5 1TB, one is empty.
So for my understanding, in my configuration you suggest NOT to use RAID-0. Im not willing to have more drives in my workstation becouse if my projekts are finished, i archiv on QNAP or archiv on other external drive.
My only intention is to have as much speed and as much performance as possible during developing a projekt
BTW QNAP i also use as media-center in combination with Sony PS3 to run the encoded files.
For my final understanding:
C: i understand
D: i understand
E and F: does it mean, when i create a projekt on E, all my captured and project-used MPEG - files should be situated in F? Or which media in F you mean?
Following your suggestions in want to rebulid Harms-Best Vista64-Benchmark comp to reach maximum speed and performance. Can i use in general the those hardware components (exept so many HD drives and exept Areca raid controller ) in my drive configuration C to F. Or would you suggest some changings in my situation?

Intel Raid Vs Marvel Raid on Big Bang B3 Marshall (Non OS Drives) via win7 setup

I apologise in advance if this seems lazy but has anybody tried setting up RAID 1 mirroring of two non-essential data hard drives within Windows 7 64-bit as opposed to a bios setup?
I only need to mirror a games hard drive so as not to have to do manually backup the hard drive with Acronis software backup every other day or so.
I have a Acronis backup of the game hard drive as I am aware that creating a raid array on both drives will delete all data on both drives but I can restore my games software later.
As it was a non-essential raid array (non-OS drives) on my previous hardware setup for these two identical games drives before upgrading to the MSI big-band Marshall B3 I totally forgot to set up the raid whilst doing a fresh install of Windows 7 on a dual boot with a previously restored/Acronis universal restore of windows 7 which also had this raid array.
If that all makes sense I'm hoping you guys can put me in the right direction as to Intel on Marvel (I seem to remember reading in the past that Marvel Raid drivers had issues) preferences for a setup within Windows 7 64-bit rather than the bios setup which would mean starting from scratch which I'm not prepared to do on a non-essential, non-OS Raid array.
If however I was doing an essential OS drives Raid array then it's a no-brainer to do a BIOS setup with a fresh install.
Any thoughts much appreciated, cheers

I don't think you are looking at the right areas.
Quote:
Sonnet Tempo cards are compatible with most external SATA storage. However, external hard drives with USB 2.0/eSATA dual interface based on the Oxford Semiconductor OXU931DS storage controller chip may not be compatible with Mac OS X when connected via SATA. Known issues are kernel panics occurring when the drive is connected, or the drive not being recognized by the operating system.
Western Digital manufactures Desktop edition (WD Caviar, Caviar SE, Caviar SE16, and Raptor X) hard drives and Enterprise (RAID) Edition (WD RE, RE2, and Raptor) hard drives. Each type of hard drive is designed to work specifically in either a desktop computer environment, or connected to a RAID controller (hardware or software-based). If you intend to configure Western Digital drives in a RAID set, Sonnet and WD recommend using only their Enterprise edition hard drives. For more information, see this Western Digital FAQ.
EndQuote
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/temposatae4p.html
Not everyone follows guidelines like they use to. Enterprise and RAID Edition drives - even Green RE4 series - not noise. You want a good drive enclosure with adequate cooling from air flow and fans. These are not silent and any drive noise is just background hum and noise that they are working.
http://macperformanceguide.com/RecommendedESATAEnclosures.html
There are dozens of reviews on drive storage. If noise is over riding then you aren't a candidate for RAID, but you are for SSD and Green, and would find SilentPCReview up your alley.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/

WinXP-64 bit corrupts existing RAID array

I've got an MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard running Win XP Pro SP2 on two 36 gig SATA Raptors. Everything was working fine, but I wanted to try the 64 bit version of XP. Grabbed an old 80 gig PATA drive and threw that in the case. Unplugged the SATA drives so as not to risk messing with the existing working OS. Installed the latest 1218 x64 beta and it worked well.
The problem was that when I shut down and reconnected my old RAID array, windows wouldn't boot from it. I lost everything and had to rebuild Windows from scratch. So now I know to never unplug the SATA drives
Rebuilt WinXP on the RAID array and then tried rebooting with the PATA drive with the 64 bit OS. Came up with the "drive needs checking" screen, and proceeds to "fix" the RAID array while ignoring my frantic pounding on the Logitech USB keyboard to stop. Rebooted and yes, the new install was nuked. Okay, since it's gone anyway, reboot to the 64 bit OS and make sure it's got the 64 bit RAID drivers installed.
Reinstall WinXP on the RAID array, reboot to the 64 bit OS on the other drive and the same old scandisk comes and nukes it AGAIN!
So now the PATA drive is sitting on the shelf again, unless someone here can suggest what is causing this problem.
System Specs
Athlon64 3500
gig of PQI 3200 at 2-2-2-5 2.6
2x36 gig Raptors on ports 3-4
Plextor PX-716a DVD+_RW
Visiontek X800 Pro.

The first time you re-installed Win 32 on the raid that was a bit drastic. A repair ought to have done the job.
The problem was probably that you disconnected the array but that's where the boot.ini was and that file needed to be modified to add the path to the Win64 install.
Since you took out the array the Win64 install created a new boot.ini on the PATA drive. Even when you tell BIOS to boot off the array, Windows has a bad habit of looking at the IDE channels & using the boot.ini if it finds one there - but the file it found didn't point to the array of course.
So basically if you already have Win32 on the array I would leave that array connected normally when installing Win64 on the PATA drive and all should be well.
I've installed Win64 on the same array as my Win32 install and they co-exist happily. I reckon that's the most efficient way to do it. The main thing is to make separate partitions for Win32, Win64 and data files when you install Win32 in the first place. The two OSs can share the same data files, incuding stuff like email.

Expanding the drives into a raid 5 array?

I am going to purchase a powermac soon, but I want to understand raid arrays a bit better. I am an HD video editor, and am getting into large files sizes...Red, XDCam, 2K etc. I can buy any 4TB raid array with a card, or I read that I can add 3 extra 1TB hard drives inside the mac pro and stripe them raid 5? I know 3 drives aren't the best for redundancy, but will it work? Will I also need Apple's raid controller for this.
As a side not, someone said use all 4 drives as an array, but the OS has to operate on its own drive unless there is something I don't know.
Any ideas are appreciated.

I know 3 drives aren't the best for redundancy, but will it work?
Hi,
If you are thinking of using the 2009 Mac Pro internal hard disk sleds to create a RAID 5 you would need a $699 Mac Pro RAID Card. http://store.apple.com/us/product/MA849Z/B
Three HDs can be used in a RAID 5, but as one disk is used for parity data this only leaves you with the volume size of two HDs and performance = to two hard disks in RAID 0. This is not an option I would select. The other downside to this configuration is the Mac Pro RAID Card does NOT support Boot Camp.
RR 2314 & SeriTek/5PM
If you want RAID 5, Boot Camp and the ability to use the internal bays for a Mac OS X system an external RAID 5 is a good choice. The HighPoint RR 2314 and the SeriTek/5PM provide a nice solution at a reasonable price.
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/highpoint/2314/
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/5pm/
As the SeriTek/5PM only requires one port on the RR 2314, users can expand to up to 20 hard disks using four enclosures. Even a single 5-bay, RAID 5 can support a 4TB volume using inexpensive 1TB hard disks. Larger hard disks are also supported. This option provides more hard disk mounting options and costs about the same as the Apple RAID 5 card.
RocketRAID 4322 & Proavio EB8MS
Another option is the HighPoint RR 4322. The controller supports RAID levels 0, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 50, hot spare and JBOD configurations. While more expensive, the RocketRAID 4322 adds RAID 6, SAS compatibility and supports an 8-bay enclosure like the Proavio EB8MS.
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/highpoint/4322/
http://www.proavio.com/eb8ms.html
RocketRAID 4322 & Enhance UltraStor RS16 JS
Another amazing performance option is the RR 4322 matched with the Enhance UltraStor RS16 JS. This 16-bay configuration provides high performance and supports large volume sizes. When AMUG tested this configuration with 16 Samsung 1TB hard disks in RAID 6 mode the volume size was 11.8TB and the average write performance across the volume was 696MB/sec. while the average read performance was 833MB/sec.
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/highpoint/4322/
http://www.amug.org/members/reviews/articles/enhance/rs16js/
Have fun!

G-RAID vs. G-RAID2

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for