RAID 5 vs RAID 10 vs RAID 6

SSD has different "rules" regarding raid 5 acceptability. Raid 5 and Raid 6 put a higher level of wear and tear on your drives however.

We are expanding our VMware server and I'm weighing my options. I have four open drive bays and I'm considering the following using 4 600 GB SSD's:
RAID 5 (3 drives + 1 drive hot spare) - Gets me 1200 GB storage, plus 1 drive redundancy
RAID 10 - Gets me 1200 GB storage, plus 1 drive redundancy
RAID 6 - Gets me 1200 GB storage, plus 2 drive redundancy
Either way, I end up with 1200 GB storage, which actually gives me lots of breathing room for the next 2.5 year, when the server will be up for replacement. The RAID 5 vs RAID 6 issue has been beat to death. I see the pros and cons of that argument. I also had RAID 5 work beautifully for me on another server a few months ago.
Given that this is four drives, does RAID 5 actually make sense? RAID 6?
This topic first appeared in the Spiceworks Community

Similar Messages

Conversion of ad20 non raid to a D20 raid 1 and keeping existing OS/data

I have a new D20 with windows 7-x64 pre installed on it. I purchased a second Lenovo supplied sata add in drive to convert the system to raid 1.
When I add the “raid 1” in support in the bios, the system when it reboots does not recognize the existing windows 7 partition.
When I used “other mfg” on board raid configuration, the working partition was considered the master partition and was automatically mirrored to the new added drive (making it raid1)
My expectation was that there would be either a “thinkvantage” tool that allowed you to do this from the OS, or there would be a some OS add on tool that performs this function
So my question.. Can you convert a d20 non raid to a D20 raid 1 (given drives are the same etc), and if so (I am a glass half full person), what is the process required to do so.
thanks
matt k.

if the marvell RAID controller hasn't been enabled, you'll need to install the driver. it can be found here: http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-73697
after this is installed, boot into the D20 BIOS and enable RAID. reboot again into the unconfigured drive and see if you can get into windows. if so, you can set up your RAID 1 array.
if you want to control RAID configuration from within windows, you'll need to install the marvell RAID utility found here: http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-73073
(edit: typo)
ThinkStation C20
ThinkPad X1C · X220 · X60T · s30 · 600

Raid S-ata,ide,raid 0,1,0+1 and io in general

I've got a bunch of questions I wanna ask so i suppose the apt thing to do on a forum like this would be to put them in priority lol.
1. I remember somebody saying that 2 raid arrays, one being raid 0 and the other being identical and used to mirror the first is impossible. Can someone tell me why and if not how to set it up?
- (I Have had Delayed Write Failure problems under XP(ectin' OSmethin' better), but I'm fairly sure I caused this by changing and fixing the page file size and forcing the machine not to page system files.)
2. There seems to be a bit of a divide as to the value of the promise controller, I would like some hard facts and first hand experiences.
3. Can both the promise and via controllers be used for seperate raid arrays and if so could one be S-ATA and the other be IDE or do they have to be homogenous?
4. If I Choose to go with a different version of raid, say 1, or 0+1 what sort of performance difference is there from raid 0 and for that matter from each other?
5. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the promise controller can handle four disks in an array - could this be true?
6. Somebody mentioned that the VIA raid solution was only a software solution, is this true and if so how much CPU overhead could I Expect.
7. Any other disk related performance or redundacy advice would regarding these controllers etc. would be appreciated.
8. Sorry about the length of this post people.

well i am no expert but i'll attemp to answer your q's
1. a windows delayed write error can be from cacheing your hard drives go to device
manager, (rt click my computer) hardware,device manager,
disk drives ,properties, policies, un check optimise for performance.
2. the promise can run a sata array and a ide array, or can combine them into one big array, with the reduced performance of the ide drives.
3. stripped or raid 0 is the fastest, especialy if your a gamer and set it up with smaller clusters, say 32k. raid 1 is mirrored, or a duplicate copy of your hard drive and is only good if your drive fails, it does nothing for corupt windows, or installs, or viruses, it is a copy, (i use norton ghost to make drive images at various stages for backups, to combat virus, and corupt installs that destroy windows.
4.you could backup a stripped array ,but when you strip ann array say two 120 gig hard drives it creates one big 240. that is why i partioned mine into two 120s, so i could ghost them. (which i feel is better then a mirror.
5. speed, when i had my system disk on ide1 it tranfered at 36 mb/sec when i put them on ide3 raid 0 128k cluster(better for large files, like photoshop) it increased to 65 mb/sec...nearly double.
6. i oc and ide oc's better then sata, so i stuck with ide and a fsb of 222.
hope that helps, and if anyone would like to add plz do

Moving from VIA RAID controller to another RAID controller?!?

Hello
I'm going to install a RAID-1 with 2 SATA harddisks from seagate using the onboard VT8237 RAID controller of my KT6 Delta.
I guess there should be no problems and that the temperature on the motherboard will be fine.
However, what will happen if I want to move later on to a new motherboard with another raid controller or install a dedicated RAID controller?!?
Will I loose all my data? Or will the new raid controller duplicate the data based on the source drive?
Thanks
JohnQM

I have read somewhere that the following migration paths apply for raid:
1. raid-1 can always be migrated to a new RAID controller, no matter which brand, because raid-1 is just a mirror and no important information is written in the partition table
2. raid-0 or other raid-levels
2.0 from one brand of RAID controller to the same version of the RAID controller of the same brand: no problem
2.1 from one brand of RAID controller to a new version of the RAID controller of the same brand: usually no problem (upwards compatible)
2.1 from one brand of RAID controller to a RAID controller of another brand: no go
Can someone confirm this please?
Thanks
JohnQM

OS drive + RAID 1 with Apple RAID card

I have a G5 Xserve with the RAID card and three ADM drives. How do I set up Megaraid to have a single non-raid drive and a RAID 1 mirror? I installed the OS onto one of the drives after a "destroyconfig". When I create the RAID with drives 1 and 2, the drive 0 is lost. THe only way I found to make it work was with a soft RAID 1 in disk utility.

How do I set up Megaraid to have a single non-raid drive and a RAID 1 mirror?
I'd go with not connecting one of the drives to the RAID card.
When you installed the card you replaced three short SATA cables with three long ones - one per drive.
Just replace one of the long ones with one of the original short ones. This will reconnect one of the drives back to the motherboard, leaving two drives connected to the RAID card.
Kind of a hack, for sure, but in lieu of having a JBOD mode in megaraid it seems like the simplest solution.

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?

Raid Utility Error Message "raid utility is not supported on this computer"

I am not doing anything that I know of, but Raid Utility keeps opening up on its own, and a message pops up multiple times a day telling me "raid utility is not supported on this computer"
Anyone have any idea how to fix this?

Network startup is if you want to start your macbook using a network drive.
Keep your startup settings at your current drive.
Raid utility doesn't apply to you since you only have one hard drive installed, unless you installed another hard drive in your optical bay.
Fibre Channel is another type of hard drive connection via network connection.
You can't access things you don't have installed in your macbook. Those are there in case you decide to have a network drive start up options, a raid configuration of a fibre channel network drive.

Backup solutions w/RAID or redundancy (NAS, RAID, DIY File server)

Hi all, I need a place to bounce my ideas off of. Here goes:
I have been doing a lot of reading, since I was considering adding an NAS solution for my home network. My data consists mainly of videos (TVs and movies) and pictures (many many years worth).
Anyways, out of the box solutions seemed a bit too pricy and the RAID not that spectacular unless you're willing to spend, so I began looking at building my own fileserver, with a hardware/software RAID solution. That was a bit better bang for the buck, but I still had one nagging concern.
I've played around with RAID before, and I realized that with mirroring (the only RAID option I was really considering), was that it relied on the RAID controller. I couldn't just take a hard drive, remove it physically from the array, and have my information accessible when plugging it into another computer.
What happens in a few years if your RAID controller dies and you can't find the exact same one? Your array will always be dependent on that controller and I really don't like that feeling. I'd rather have the option of taking a drive, plugging it in another computer, rather than needing to move the whole array (RAID, NAS, DIY file server) around. That means quicker access to my information or the ability to take it with me anywhere I go, on a moment's notice.
The least costly solution I have come up with, for data that doesn't change all that much, is to have two huge drives (1 TB) on a computer, either one or both connected via eSATA. Just remember to ghost/copy the main drive once in a while, and keep the 'backup' drive detached (preferably located in a fire-proof safe) and back it up once in a while, on a regular basis).
Sorry for the long post, but how does that sound, for a cheap, reliable backup solution, for data that doesn't get updated too frequently and for ease of access and use?

Hi BGBG;
For what you are attempting to do, RAID is not the best solution. The reason I say this is because RAID 1 is only capable of protection from disk failure. It is not a valid backup solution.
I think that your last solution of using eSATA and a copy is the best. My only addition to your proposal would be a third disk. That way when you move the backup disk into storage you could replace it with the third one. In this way you could use SuperDuper to periodically backup between two disks.
Allan

Unknown Raid 5 Array after Raid controller replaced

Hello,
I had a raid controller fail during the week, and after shutting the xraid down and installing the new controller, all the drives in the array are now amber.
In Raid Admin 1.5 the array does not show up, only all 6 member drives with an amber warning and 'Type: Unknown Array'.
I used the 'Recognize Array' utility to try and fix this, however whilst each drive shows as being recognized as being part of a Raid 5 set, it will not recreate it.
Am I completely screwed? or is there some other way to get this to repair/recognize?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Mark

Due to time restrictions on getting the xraid back online, had to recreate the raid and restore data from backup.
No fix found.

Configure Xserve RAID as a single RAID 5 array?

We just picked up a used Xserve RAID with 14x750GB drives, and we want to configure the entire unit as a single RAID5 array. RAID Utility will let us configure each side as a separate array, but not both sides in a single array. Is this not possible or are we just missing something simple?

No, each side of the RAID is logically separate so while you can create a RAID 5 on either side there is no way to create a single RAID5 of the unit. You can create a RAID 50 and make the 2 RAID5s into a single volume software RAID 0 by using Disk Utility to join the two 5s into a single volume but that's as close as it comes.
HTH,
=Tod

To RAID or not to RAID: 4Tb Mac Pro Server

Hi,
Hope someone can steer in the right direction.
I've got a Mac Pro Server. It has 4 x 1Tb HDs and a 6TB Drobo S for backup. It has a RAID card.
My query is, as I need at least 2Tb space instantly to store Final Cut Pro files, etc. Won't be using the server to actually edit anything, or any other tasks.
a) Do I set up RAID and get only approx. 2TB of usable space - therefore filling it up straightaway
b) Leave it as 4 separate 1Tb harddrives (to get most space)and let the Drobo do its BeyondRAID thing? (At the moment the data is all a Mac and on single Firewire external drives).
c) If I go RAID (it's brand new so I'm at the setup stage). Which is the best option for me?
d) If I do RAID, should I partition 100gb on drive 1, for OSX and programs, etc and then RAID the rest? I guess that means I have to reinstall the whole system? Or can I 'live' partition on a Mac these days?
The Mac Server is a fairly temp solution as we're getting a proper SANs this year, but at present the data lives on a Mac tower (with MyStudio backup drive) and also on a few Firewire drives.
HELP!
Many thanks.

1. With only 4 drives, raid 5 should be fine. That gives 3TB (1TB for redundancy).
2. A backup is more important than raid.
3. The raid setup for the san can be tricky. Depending on the size, you may not want raid 5, but 50, or 6. Consider: A 16TB raid 5 array will need to read all bits CORRECTLY to rebuild a failed raid 5 array. What is the bit error rate of modern disks? Approximately 1 bit for 16TB-20TB of data. So a large raid 5 san may fail to rebuild. Got a backup? This is why they created raid 6.
4. I would setup an extra partition, maybe 100GB, on the raid array. Why? I find it handy, if you need to check the disks, you can reboot from that 100GB partition and check the big partition. Also, you can have 2 different versions of the os on the raid array. You will find this useful, when a update comes out that breaks some things, you can run off the older os and you don't have to live with the broken functionality.

2 Filled Sonnet Fusion 500P enclosures; RAID 0/1, or RAID 5?

I currently have a Sonnet Fusion 500P loaded with 5 WD 500GB RE2 drives; all running individually and not RAIDed; this box is connected to a Sonnet Tempo E2P in my MacPro.
I'm interested in getting a 2nd identical enclosure and drives, and creating a RAID system using 10 drives. I also plan on upgrading the E2P to the E4P, since it will provide increased RAID performance that the E2P does not.
I've been reading the various posts on RAID on these forums, and also have looked through the AMUG articles and reviews, and I have a couple of questions.
First, can I stripe the 5 drives in each enclosure, and then mirror the two enclosures? This RAID setup will be used for Final Cut Pro capture and editing, and also for DVD Studio Pro files. Basically, I would have 2.5TB of high speed storage, and a duplicate of that.
Second question-can I do this with Disk Utility, or would I need additional software/hardware to accomplish it?
And finally, I'm a little vague about RAID 5 setups, but would it be better to create a RAID 5 with one enclosure and 5 drives, using 4 for storage and one for parity information? From my limited knowledge of this, I think that if the RAID 5 failed, it could be rebuilt using the info on the 5th drive? Is this correct?
What would be the best way to go here, taking into account the hardware I already have? If I'm off base, I'm open to suggestions for a different setup that would have comparable storage space, speed, and backup.
Thanks for any advice anyone can give.

Dear Mike,
It sounds like you want more RAID capabilities than Disk Utility can easily provide. Since you are looking for a new host adapter card anyway, you might as well get one that can provide RAID 0, 1, 5 and 1/0. I would suggest the HighPoint RocketRAID 2314 if you want to stay with individual eSATA cables. The AMUG review can be found here:
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/highpoint/2314/
If you would rather have a card with a single cable and do not mind purchasing an extra cable, I really like the HighPoint RocketRAID 2314MS which is the same card with a different cable system. Here is that AMUG review and a link to the cable you would need:
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/highpoint/2314ms/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000JQ51CM/arizomacinusergr
The Sonnet E4P is a good card but it cannot support RAID 5, 10 or 50 and the HighPoint cards can.
The HighPoint cards also provide just as good or better performance with a 10 drive SATA PM configuration like the one you are considering.
It sounds like the main reason for the second SATA PM enclosure is mainly backup. Please understand that a RAID 5, 10 or 50 configuration adds redundancy to your hard disk array but it is not a guarantee that you will recover from directory corruption or user errors. If the directory is corrupted on a RAID 10 it can easily write the same corrupted data on the mirror copy of the drive.
If you truly want a backup, I would consider using SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner at the end of each day to backup the work on the first SATA PM RAID to the RAID in the 2nd SATA PM enclosure. Having your backup off-line when not in use is the best way to be ensure the backup data will be intact when you need it.
Have fun!

Promise RAID vs. Via RAID

When I was setting up my system I wasn't really sure which RAID controller I should use in order to get the best performance...I opted to go with the Via controller as it is an integrated part of the KT800 chipset whereas the Promise RAID controller is an optional add-in chip (or such is my understanding), so I figured using the Via controller would give the best performance...but I'm curious as to how the Promise controller performs. Has anyone tried setting an array up both ways and testing to see which controller performed better?
I'm running two 36 GB WD Raptor SATA drives in RAID-0 off the Via controller, and I get a score of 61 MB/sec in Sandra 2004's File System benchmark...if anyone is running a similar array off the Promise controller and could post their benchmark results, I'd appreciate it.

I've 'tested' both controllers.
Before the K8T, I was using a KT4 ultra with a Promise 376 and two raptors RAID0 (around 60-70Mb/s with HDTach)
Then I switched to the Promise 378 of the K8T (I keep promise to keep data). A little bit better than with the 376 of the KT4V but not very clear. I recently put the two raptors on the VIA. A little bit better but again, not very clear. It seems however that with the VIA the output is more 'unstable' .. I mean: with Promise, HD Tach gives me a straight line from the begining of the disk array to the end; with VIA, it's less straight.
I think I will crash my RAID 0 to test with one raptor on the VIA and one on the Promise. OSsystem for a disk, software and apps for the other one. I'm not sure that it's a goo idea

Xserve Raid - moving raid set from one Xserve Raid to another Xserve Raid.

I have 2 raids, and one will be moving to another building. Can I take one raid set out of unit 1 and place it into unit 2 without losing the data that is on it?

You shouldn't loose the data, but you may have to use the RAID utilities to recognize the set, once it is in the the other XRAID box.
As always, you should backup, in any event, if you have the space.

TD340 Thinkserver Raid 500 Upgrade with Raid 5 key not detected

Hello,
I have just purchased the TD340 and the Thinkserver Raid 500 Upgrade and Upgrade key. I am trying to set this up but it is not being seen by the bios and/or the thinkserver easysetup cd. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!!!!

I just went through the same thing. If you only have 1 CPU, only PCI slots 1, 2 and 5 are functional. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15hn82uf-p0

Need help with RAID Card and degraded Raid-5 errors

Dear all,
I recently purchased a used Apple RAID card for my 2008 Mac Pro 8-Core. The installation went smooth, the card was immediately recognized and the battery reconditioned within one night.
So I started setting up a Raid Set with the 4 identical drives which I already used before as a software Raid. But each time the Raid Level-5 Volume is created, somewhat later the status turns red and the Raid is listed as "degraded"!
A closer look at log reveals:
+19:42:54 Drive carrier 00:01 inserted+
+19:42:27 Background task aborted: Task=Init,Scope=DRVGRP,Group=RS1+
+19:42:27 Degraded RAID set RS1 - No spare available for rebuild+
+19:42:26 Degraded RAID set RS1+
+19:42:22 Drive carrier 00:01 removed+
+15:10:57 Created volume “R1V1” on RAID set “RS1”+
So it seems that the drive from Bay 1 somehow gets lost (removed) a few hours after the volume is being created and anysoon later it's being "reinserted"...
Of course, the drive is NOT removed, nobody touched the Mac Pro! Also I did the same procedure 3 times and the result was always the same.
I also tried setting up JBOD and different RAID levels which do all work without a problem. Only when choosing RAID5 (what I intentionally bought the card for), the problem reappears
Anyone any solution or hint for me concerning this problem? Many thanks in advance!

One drive completely broke down later. Replaced that drive and since the problem's gone!

RAID 5 vs RAID 10 vs RAID 6

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for