-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Website and RAID
- Thread starter AnnaYung
- Start date
Larry Wright
New Member
Hi Anna, okay so let me first state that I will not go over RAID 2 or RAID 3. I'm going to keep this as simple as possible because you obviously want to know about RAID and don't have much experience with it.
Raid 0: There is no data redundancy, but it's much faster than running just one drive. The data is stored and accessed on both drives simultaneously to increase performance. Minimum drives needed for this is 2 hard drives.
Raid 1: There is data redundancy, data is copied across multiple drives. It's essentially slower, but not by much from benchmarks I've run in the past. This is usually needed when you want some redundancy if a hard drive fails. Minimum drives needed for this is 2 hard drives.
Raid 10: This is the best of both worlds. It requires 4 hard drives, and you get both the speed benefits of Raid 0, and the redundancy of Raid 1.
Just fair to mention, there're more data failures in Raid setups than single drive deployments. This doesn't mean a hard drive is more likely to fail since it's in a Raid setup, it just means that now that there are more drives in the configuration, you have that many more times to experience a hard drive failure. Fortunately, Raid is setup for this very reason.
With 1 hard drive, you lose everything, but you have the lowest risk of having a hard drive failure. With 2 drives, you have the same loss potential as 1 hard drive in Raid 0, but with Raid 1, you have a 50% rate of keeping all your data as long as the other drive is still working. Obviously if both drives fail, you lose everything. With 4 hard drives, you now have 4 chances at experiencing a hard drive failure. Risk is much higher, but you still have more redundancy.
I might have gotten carried away with this, but essentially that's what Raid is. It's good that you want to consider hosting on RAID servers, but there're pros and cons to both sides.
Just one last note, RAID is not a backup solution. It never was, and it never will be.
Raid 0: There is no data redundancy, but it's much faster than running just one drive. The data is stored and accessed on both drives simultaneously to increase performance. Minimum drives needed for this is 2 hard drives.
Raid 1: There is data redundancy, data is copied across multiple drives. It's essentially slower, but not by much from benchmarks I've run in the past. This is usually needed when you want some redundancy if a hard drive fails. Minimum drives needed for this is 2 hard drives.
Raid 10: This is the best of both worlds. It requires 4 hard drives, and you get both the speed benefits of Raid 0, and the redundancy of Raid 1.
Just fair to mention, there're more data failures in Raid setups than single drive deployments. This doesn't mean a hard drive is more likely to fail since it's in a Raid setup, it just means that now that there are more drives in the configuration, you have that many more times to experience a hard drive failure. Fortunately, Raid is setup for this very reason.
With 1 hard drive, you lose everything, but you have the lowest risk of having a hard drive failure. With 2 drives, you have the same loss potential as 1 hard drive in Raid 0, but with Raid 1, you have a 50% rate of keeping all your data as long as the other drive is still working. Obviously if both drives fail, you lose everything. With 4 hard drives, you now have 4 chances at experiencing a hard drive failure. Risk is much higher, but you still have more redundancy.
I might have gotten carried away with this, but essentially that's what Raid is. It's good that you want to consider hosting on RAID servers, but there're pros and cons to both sides.
Just one last note, RAID is not a backup solution. It never was, and it never will be.
Hi Anna, okay so let me first state that I will not go over RAID 2 or RAID 3. I'm going to keep this as simple as possible because you obviously want to know about RAID and don't have much experience with it.
Raid 0: There is no data redundancy, but it's much faster than running just one drive. The data is stored and accessed on both drives simultaneously to increase performance. Minimum drives needed for this is 2 hard drives.
Raid 1: There is data redundancy, data is copied across multiple drives. It's essentially slower, but not by much from benchmarks I've run in the past. This is usually needed when you want some redundancy if a hard drive fails. Minimum drives needed for this is 2 hard drives.
Raid 10: This is the best of both worlds. It requires 4 hard drives, and you get both the speed benefits of Raid 0, and the redundancy of Raid 1.
Just fair to mention, there're more data failures in Raid setups than single drive deployments. This doesn't mean a hard drive is more likely to fail since it's in a Raid setup, it just means that now that there are more drives in the configuration, you have that many more times to experience a hard drive failure. Fortunately, Raid is setup for this very reason.
With 1 hard drive, you lose everything, but you have the lowest risk of having a hard drive failure. With 2 drives, you have the same loss potential as 1 hard drive in Raid 0, but with Raid 1, you have a 50% rate of keeping all your data as long as the other drive is still working. Obviously if both drives fail, you lose everything. With 4 hard drives, you now have 4 chances at experiencing a hard drive failure. Risk is much higher, but you still have more redundancy.
I might have gotten carried away with this, but essentially that's what Raid is. It's good that you want to consider hosting on RAID servers, but there're pros and cons to both sides.
Just one last note, RAID is not a backup solution. It never was, and it never will be.
Thanks for sharing the informative information, i also want to know about it.
