If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building, with XP Pro.
Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one needs to do the F6 tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning of the installation of XP Pro. I like the RAID 1 concept, but what happens if the motherboard fails? Is there a danger of losing all the data on the mirrored disks after replacing the motherboard? It seems one would have to go through the F6 procedure again so the motherboard accepts a RAID configuration. Does that force a Clean Install?? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
At face value, a backup hard drive that contains the contents of the boot
hard drive seems ideal. That's RAID 1. However, most hard drives don't instantly fail. They show signs of read/write problems intially. Some of these things are mirrored on the backup hard drive automatically. The mirrored hard drive may or may not be bootable on the same PC after such a scenario. All personal data may or may not be available. -- Dave "Sternkreuzer" wrote in message ... I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building, with XP Pro. Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one needs to do the F6 tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning of the installation of XP Pro. I like the RAID 1 concept, but what happens if the motherboard fails? Is there a danger of losing all the data on the mirrored disks after replacing the motherboard? It seems one would have to go through the F6 procedure again so the motherboard accepts a RAID configuration. Does that force a Clean Install?? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
Sternkreuzer wrote:
I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building, with XP Pro. Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one needs to do the F6 tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning of the installation of XP Pro. I like the RAID 1 concept, but what happens if the motherboard fails? Is there a danger of losing all the data on the mirrored disks after replacing the motherboard? It seems one would have to go through the F6 procedure again so the motherboard accepts a RAID configuration. Does that force a Clean Install?? A combination of any true raid (RAID0 is merely striping - JBOD) with consistent scheduled external backups is the best assurance against data loss and long rebuild times. I don't like RAID1 because it only gives protection against catastrophic *instant* failure of the first hard disk drive. If your computer gets messed up in the way computers normally do (software/human intervention) - that probably got replicated to the second drive and thus - you still lost anything not backed up externally. ;-) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:09:00 -0700, Sternkreuzer
wrote: I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building, with XP Pro. Why? Except for corporations, it's almost always a mistake. Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one needs to do the F6 tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning of the installation of XP Pro. I like the RAID 1 concept, OK, but most people completely misunderstand what RAID 1 is all about. RAID 1 (mirroring) is *not* a backup solution. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive fails the other takes over seamlessly. Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, user errors, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in place. Read my thoughts on backup he http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314 -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
"Lil' Dave" wrote: At face value, a backup hard drive that contains the contents of the boot hard drive seems ideal. That's RAID 1. However, most hard drives don't instantly fail. They show signs of read/write problems intially. Some of these things are mirrored on the backup hard drive automatically. The mirrored hard drive may or may not be bootable on the same PC after such a scenario. All personal data may or may not be available. -- Dave What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was reading about recently at http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets...storage_sb.htm That seems to try to address the concerns you mentioned... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
"Shenan Stanley" wrote: A combination of any true raid (RAID0 is merely striping - JBOD) with consistent scheduled external backups is the best assurance against data loss and long rebuild times. I don't like RAID1 because it only gives protection against catastrophic *instant* failure of the first hard disk drive. If your computer gets messed up in the way computers normally do (software/human intervention) - that probably got replicated to the second drive and thus - you still lost anything not backed up externally. ;-) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was reading about recently at http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets...storage_sb.htm That seems to try to address the concerns you mentioned... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:09:00 -0700, Sternkreuzer wrote: I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building, with XP Pro. Why? Except for corporations, it's almost always a mistake. Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one needs to do the F6 tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning of the installation of XP Pro. I like the RAID 1 concept, OK, but most people completely misunderstand what RAID 1 is all about. RAID 1 (mirroring) is *not* a backup solution. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive fails the other takes over seamlessly. Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, user errors, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in place. Read my thoughts on backup he http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314 -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup I just finished reading your article and found it most informative. I would like to pose the same question as to the previous replies: What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was reading about recently at http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets...storage_sb.htm They discuss using RAID 1, 5 or 10, presumably with internal Hard Drives, and they also discuss making a Recovery Disk. However they do not seem to be very clear about what the difference is between the two... They certainly promote their methods as the ideal solution to solving the issues of keeping the data of the home user safe. Making an iso copy with Acronis True Image sounds like a great way to have a recovery disk on hand. Is this product at the "user friendly" level? Also the information about the danger that a full back-up poses when it overwrites the old back-up is certainly an item to consider.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
Sternkreuzer wrote:
I am considering putting RAID 1 on the new machine I am building, with XP Pro. Reading the documentation on the Intel motherboard it seems one needs to do the F6 tinkering with the BIOS at the very beginning of the installation of XP Pro. I like the RAID 1 concept, but what happens if the motherboard fails? Is there a danger of losing all the data on the mirrored disks after replacing the motherboard? It seems one would have to go through the F6 procedure again so the motherboard accepts a RAID configuration. Does that force a Clean Install? Shenan Stanley wrote: A combination of any true raid (RAID0 is merely striping - JBOD) with consistent scheduled external backups is the best assurance against data loss and long rebuild times. I don't like RAID1 because it only gives protection against catastrophic *instant* failure of the first hard disk drive. If your computer gets messed up in the way computers normally do (software/human intervention) - that probably got replicated to the second drive and thus - you still lost anything not backed up externally. ;-) Sternkreuzer wrote: What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was reading about recently at http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets...storage_sb.htm That seems to try to address the concerns you mentioned... It does not address my concern(s) at all. The "Matrix Storage Technology" is nothing new. 2004/2005ish? In any case - RAID1 is still mirroring from one set of storage to another - and in the case of hardware RAID1 (BTW - *I* would never recommend any software RAID solution to anyone for any reason) it is usually instantaneous mirroring. If you have something mess up on the first storage device non-hardware related (or even hardware where it scrambles a few files and is not catastrophic and instant total failure) - it will replicate to the other storage device and you have no good backups *if* that was your only solution for such. - Performance-wise - there is *no* benefit to RAID1 for the home consumer. - Price-wise - you are losing money because you spent twice as much money on something that gives you potentially nothing in return by itself. Look into RAID5 further. Redundancy and continued functionality even during a minor failure make it still the 'king' of RAID arrays for many people. Yes - you cannot just have two disks - you have to have a minumum of three and the hardware capable of doing a RAID5. However - with RAID5 - if you lose any single disk - you continue to run and usually can *make* the time available to you to replace the bad disk and continue working. *However* - it has to be pointed out again - RAID is not a backup solution. It is a redundancy (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) solution - it keeps you up and going for as much time as is feasibly possible - even during single drive failures. Consistent and scheduled backups to external media is still necessary if you want a complete 'disaster recovery' type solution. Performance-wise, there is a slight benefit to RAID0 (not true RAID in my opinion) and RAID5, as you spread the load across more spindles. To be quite honest though - most home users (even those hobbiest video editors, music producers, etc) will never see the actual performance gain over just a single large modern hard disk drive. Some of the other (lesser known/lesser used) RAIDs have benefits and disadvantages (as you would expect) - but none can I recommend as highly as RAID5 for overall reliability and redundancy-type protection. (Although someone doing serious video recording/video streaming might benefit from RAID3...) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:06:01 -0700, Sternkreuzer
wrote: "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, user errors, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in place. Read my thoughts on backup he http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314 -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup I just finished reading your article and found it most informative. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. I would like to pose the same question as to the previous replies: What do you think of Intel's "Matrix Storage" solution which I was reading about recently at http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets...storage_sb.htm I know nothing about it, but if it's RAID mirroring, I repeat that it's a poor choice for home users. They discuss using RAID 1, 5 or 10, presumably with internal Hard Drives, RAID is always with internal drives. and they also discuss making a Recovery Disk. However they do not seem to be very clear about what the difference is between the two... They certainly promote their methods as the ideal solution to solving the issues of keeping the data of the home user safe. I completely disagree. Again, don't mix up redundancy, which is what RAID 1 provides, with backup. The classic example of the need for redundancy is an airline reservation system. If a drive is lost and the system has to go down to restore a backup, *millions* of dollars in revenue can be lost during the down time, because customers are fickle and will take their business elsewhere while the system is down. Because that can't be tolerated, redundancy is required, using RAID 1 (or some similar mirroring system). Home users very rarely have a need anything like that. If your system is down for an hour or even a few, while you restore from a backup, it may be a minor nuisance, but that's all. The home user needs, most of all, to be sure that the backup always exists. That's why it's critical that backup be on external media, not stored within the computer. Making an iso copy with Acronis True Image sounds like a great way to have a recovery disk on hand. Is this product at the "user friendly" level? Yes, I think it's very easy to use. Also the information about the danger that a full back-up poses when it overwrites the old back-up is certainly an item to consider.... That's why the best choice is to use two (or more) external drives, and alternate between them. That way the act of creating a backup is never also the act of destroying your only backup. Especially in these days of very inexpensive hard drives, that latter alternative is what I recommend. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
Many Thanks for the help on this topic. This has given me a fresh and much broader picture of what is going on with system recovery and backup. I had not run across the clear distinction between redundancy and backup that has been presented here. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:19:00 -0700, Sternkreuzer
wrote: Many Thanks for the help on this topic. This has given me a fresh and much broader picture of what is going on with system recovery and backup. I had not run across the clear distinction between redundancy and backup that has been presented here. You're welcome. Glad to help. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is RAID 1 enough?
Depends on the actual RAID controller. Usually, RAID 1 pairs can be split and
will work as standard disks without any changes being needed other than perhaps the partition-type byte. Not so other RAID types. A key concern with RAID 5/10 is failure of the controller itself, which may leave the data inaccessible. I've had the situation where a bad disk took-out the data on its partner as well as its own. In this case mirroring INCREASED the chance of disk-failure from 50%, (depending which of the two disks I'd chosen as a standalone) to 100% if both were in use as a mirror pair. Not good! The chances of this happening are less with separate disk-controllers, greater if both disks are on the same controller. "Sternkreuzer" wrote: I like the RAID 1 concept, but what happens if the motherboard fails? Is there a danger of losing all the data on the mirrored disks after replacing the motherboard? It seems one would have to go through the F6 procedure again so the motherboard accepts a RAID configuration. Does that force a Clean Install?? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|