Timeline for RAID with 3 x 500GB on 3 disks? (9 partitions)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2023 at 18:20 | comment | added | Nikita Kipriyanov | This complexity really creates a problem with management, e.g. increasing the human error probability. This is the only adverse effect on reliability it has. The setup with three hard drives, dumb HBA and a software RAID we are discussing here is far from being complex enough to noticeably affect the reliability due to "more points to fail". | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 16:03 | comment | added | music2myear | In consumer hardware and software, you don't get that level of expected reliability that justifies the multiplied failure rate in this complex system. So the complexity drawbacks, which you note, are not offset by any real reliability improvements. Personally, for this level of effort I'd get a couple external drives to handle backup duties and use the internal storage in a simpler arrangement. | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 16:00 | comment | added | music2myear | @NikitaKipriyanov re making it less reliable: When your using respected and trusted and quality hardware to manage your RAID, it can be more reliable. You are expecting the disk hardware to fail before the controller, and so you're OK with a single controller point of failure in order to protect against disk failure, BUT you've already created a system with more points to fail, which actually INCREASES your expected failure rate. If the RAID controller can act in parallel, then you'd decrease the failure rate. | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 6:08 | answer | added | Xen2050 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 5:13 | comment | added | Nikita Kipriyanov | There is a wrong for having so many partitions. It's making the storage system complicated and prone to management mistakes, which can result in data loss. At the very least, one doesn't use partitions but logical volumes, or, in Windows, that's what Dynamic Disks are for. By the way, probably converting all disks to dynamic and creating "mirrored" volumes on them is feasible and Windows will be able to figure out how to lay out extents to devices so to maximize the redundant storage? One thing I know for certain it won't permit you to marry disks with different physical sector sizes. | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 5:07 | comment | added | Xen2050 | There's nothing wrong with multiple partitions, very handy for installing multiple distros, local backups, smaller chunks for easier online backups... Or just basically complicating data storage | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 4:51 | comment | added | Nikita Kipriyanov | Funny enough, what you've invented is widely used in Synology DSM where it is called SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID). But DSM is based on Linux which has so much more storage capabilites that Windows, including various RAIDs. So it is easy to implement such a scenario in Linux, while I doubt it is possible to do in Windows at all. But don't listen those who say "this is less reliable": this scheme is time proven to be reliable. | |
| Dec 6, 2023 at 4:15 | history | edited | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
expanded
|
| Dec 6, 2023 at 2:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 11, 2023 at 3:04 | |||||
| Dec 6, 2023 at 2:05 | history | edited | Giacomo1968 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Dec 6, 2023 at 0:33 | history | edited | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Dec 6, 2023 at 0:30 | comment | added | Manualphotog | yes, i want to stripe the 500GB on each 2TB and then mirror to the barracuda 500gb . So the Barracude 500GB SATA is reliable , I then have 2X the read speed to the "original" 500GB (striped across two 2TB drives). My Question is can I then use the remain 3TB (or 6 x 500GB partitions - 3 on each 2TB drive) as normal HDD space. I dont intend to RAID all 9 partitions | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 23:19 | comment | added | Frank Thomas | Why do you want to have a RAID array? doing it cheap can actually make your data more vulnerable to loss than single disk architectures. consider that if you did create a nine volume raid, if one of your 2TB disks fails, that would take down 4 of the RAID volumes, which is I believe beyond the rebuildable limit. its unlikely that just one partition on the disk would "go bad". cheap controllers can lose their logical volumes leading to a complete data loss in the worst case, without even suffering a single failed disk. consider your backups carefully. raid is not a replacement. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:56 | comment | added | Manualphotog | music2myear - whats the drawback to doing it software wise? My intentions is to have everything im working on say in Lightroom, on the 500GB ePCI drive . The 3x 500GB partitions would be where I archive or keep things long term. So not too much read and write , thats why i was hoping the remaining 2 x 1.5TB could be for regular use? | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:41 | history | edited | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:33 | comment | added | music2myear | Hardware RAID generally only supports entire disks, not individual partitions. Software RAID can support partitions, but note that the throughput of the entire disk must be taken into account. For this reason, the details of your OS and other system details are necessary to begin giving you good answers. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:29 | history | edited | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:28 | history | edited | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
answering a Q from comment
|
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:27 | history | edited | Ramhound | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:25 | history | edited | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:24 | comment | added | Ramhound | What type of RAID are we talking about? You should edit your question instead of submitting a comment. What word is "aprt" suppose to be? | |
| S Dec 5, 2023 at 21:20 | review | First questions | |||
| Dec 5, 2023 at 21:42 | |||||
| S Dec 5, 2023 at 21:20 | history | asked | Manualphotog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |