Re: VISTA with Raid 5 HD?
OK, I have a better picture of the requirements and the parameters, now.
You're in the position where speed and reliability are paramount, cost
relatively secondary. There are two basic ways to go:
1.) RAID 10 or RAID 0+1 on SAS drives. Figure the space you need/want and
order twice as many disks as it takes to get to that point, since you'll be
having 1/2 of our space dedicated to redundancy. But it will be fast, and
very reliable. (RAID 10 is a strip of mirrored drives, RAID 0+1 is a mirror
of striped drives. In either case, you'll need a minimum of 4 drives, and
you add them in pairs. )
2.) A Storage Area Network (SAN). This adds to the cost and complexity,
certainly, but could be a good option for an external array. I've been using
a SAN from EqualLogic that is awesome - I hate to send it back! But the
price here is qualitatively different. You'll spend more on the SAN than on
all the rest of your hardware together.
However you go, use SAS or SCSI - avoid SATA except as a useful extra
storage. I have a pair of 400 GB SATA drives in a RAID0 that is just a bunch
of ISOs and static storage. I can replace anything on it if I need to, it's
just there for convenience. My real work is being done on an 8x72GB, 15k
RPM, 2.5" SAS drives in a RAID array (RAID 6 in my case, since multiple
redundancy is more important to me than absolute speed.) The controller is
an HP 400 (forget the exact designation) with 512 Mb of battery backed
cache.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:56C550D6-9B02-4E37-9DCD-6B5148414DE8@microsoft.com...
> All my work is graphics and printing and speed helps a great deal but I do
> have to keep an eye on space. At the moment I am working with a 5 external
> disks for saving and I really don't keep anything on my Pc. I have already
> experienced data loss with Raid 0 so having Raid 5 would allow me to work
> without this worry and so on.
> Speed plays it's part as I handle heavy files and Raid 0 helps a lot, I
> really thought Raid 5 would be faster but then as you say you have to find
> the right balance between what you need and what you get.
> Costs are really not a problem, product pays well and in my field
> time/quality is the game!.
>
> Thanks again for the advice
> AndyB
> weather here (Milano/Italy) gone totaly crazy, should be winter but living
> a second spring/summer season!
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:56824001-7DE5-40CE-8E98-1ABCD3510F70@microsoft.com...
>> Fewer drives, more wasted space - for each drive you need a second. For
>> RAID5, you will lose some speed relative to RAID0, but you have a HUGE
>> advantage over RAID0 - you're actually protected if one of the drives
>> fails! With RAID0 you _increase_ your likelihood of a catastrophic
>> failure resulting in data loss.
>>
>> Quality components will make a big difference here. If your application
>> is write intensive, you need redundancy, and you care about speed, use
>> RAID1 or RAID 10. For predeminately reads? RAID5 is fine. But really, so
>> much depends on your tolerance for data loss, your actual application
>> mix, and your willingness to spend more on hardware. It's a balancing
>> act.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message
>> news:%23AZ21Z6BIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>I initially tested RAID5 on my XP x64, it was not very fast compared to
>>>'zero' so I quickly dumped the idea. I think if you need the safty, RAID1
>>>is probably nearly as fast as '5', but with fewer drives?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message
>>> news:53A2D547-DD46-40EB-9B21-7513A74E7EDF@microsoft.com...
>>>> Thanks, infact I am already checking out the the controller issue: I
>>>> was satisfied with Xp and am also with Vista 64 so would like to
>>>> continue with Vista but a bit worried on a few issues. If Raid 5 works
>>>> as well as my Raid 0 system then I'll go ahead and assemble the
>>>> workstation.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again and any advise is greatly appreciated
>>>> AndyB
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio news:711ECA45-9865-4FA0-84F9-055F58FF4527@microsoft.com...
>>>>> RAID5 is moderately fast for reads, and moderately slow for writes.
>>>>> Both of these can be improved by using more disks in the array. Beyond
>>>>> that, choosing a disk technology that supports busmastering, such as
>>>>> SAS or SCSI, along with a RAID controller that has a significant
>>>>> amount of battery backed cache RAM, will make the single biggest
>>>>> difference in performance. SAS isn't as inexpensive as SATA, but if
>>>>> performance is your criteria, it's the way to go. (If you really want
>>>>> to maximize performance, take a look at a RAID array that supports
>>>>> 2.5" SAS drives - they will allow you 8 drives in the space of two HD
>>>>> bays.)
>>>>>
>>>>> For any hardware controller, you need to ensure that your controller
>>>>> is supported by Vista 64bit. Either with native drivers, or by being
>>>>> able to load drivers during the install.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "BENAGLIA" <benaglia.andrea@tiscali.it> wrote in message
>>>>> news:F9192E2C-8286-411E-ACC6-D1C7FC5B7053@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Evening to all
>>>>> Have already posted on the hardware_devises forum but would like to
>>>>> have some feedback on assembling a new high performance Pc with Raid 5
>>>>> disk's and Vista Business 64 bit operating system. My pc now has Vista
>>>>> Business 64 and Raid 0 disk's and I am fully satisfied but need to set
>>>>> up a second work station and would like to know if anyone has tried
>>>>> Vista 64 with Raid 5 HD and problems encountered.
>>>>> Any news would be great
>>>>>
>>>>> AndyB
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
(have to add in