Q. Building a computer was planning on doing Raid 0 not sure if i should please tell me if i shouldnt but if it is wise then just wondering how it will be done...
A. 1) I use RAID 0 and have never expeirneced a problem... when using raid 0 you have double the disk speed(read/write,etc).
2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)
here is a little more info about raid 0:
RAID 0 advantages:
RAID 0 performance
While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]
RAID 0 disadvantages:
RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.
Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:
\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members â so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.
The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)
here is a little more info about raid 0:
RAID 0 advantages:
RAID 0 performance
While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]
RAID 0 disadvantages:
RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.
Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:
\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members â so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.
The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
Does raid 0 configuration actually increase individual hard drive failure probability?
Q. I know that having two hard drives in raid 0 increases the overall failure rate just because you have two hard drives, of which if one goes down the other is useless, but how often does a hard drive or ssd indovidually actually fail?
Does putting a hdd or ssd in raid 0 or any raid configuration actually increase it's probability of failure?
Does putting a hdd or ssd in raid 0 or any raid configuration actually increase it's probability of failure?
A. SHORT ANSWER:
No, putting a drive into a Raid doesn't increase it's own probability of failure. And while modern drives don't fail frequently, the DO fail. The chances go up the longer you use them, either due to wear-and-tear (HDDs / hybrids), or because eventually the memory cells in SSDs start hitting their maximum wear-level.
LONG ANSWER:
As you probably already know, Raid 0 is striping, meaning that if you write a 100K file to your raid, it "stripes" that file across both drives. 50K on one drive, 50K on the other. Raid 0 does this for every file it stores.
The main advantage to Raid0 is that both drives are involved in reading and writing files, which speeds up reads and writes significantly. It's a Raid configuration designed for speed, not reliability.
The main disadvantage... is that files are always split up onto both drives in stripes. If you lose either drive, then the whole Raid 0 is dead - you just lost ALL of your data, unless you have some pretty-good data-recovery software than can rebuild raids.
A few years back I (stupidly) based my whole computer on a 3-way Raid 0 array, with 3 330GB drives. It ran as fast as lightning (this pretty-much predated SSDs), and for the 2-3 years I ran it, I experienced multiple system crashes, power failures, etc. without the array ever failing. That was probably half luck, and half good quality components (WD black drives, good quality motherboard with reliable bios, etc.).
One day while formatting a new separate drive, I accidentally picked the wrong drive and started formatting part of my Raid 0. I hit the power switch immediately but the damage was done - my Raid 0 was fried. Luckily I was able to manually reconstruct the Raid with a recovery tool ( if you're interested in the tool, see http://www.r-studio.com/ ), and recovered about 75% of my data. But it was a painful, painful process.
Bottom-line: I wouldn't recommend raid-0 unless you're really desperate for speed beyond what SSDs can provide, and you are either prepared to backup your data regularly, or you don't mind taking risks.
Cheers;
Wire
No, putting a drive into a Raid doesn't increase it's own probability of failure. And while modern drives don't fail frequently, the DO fail. The chances go up the longer you use them, either due to wear-and-tear (HDDs / hybrids), or because eventually the memory cells in SSDs start hitting their maximum wear-level.
LONG ANSWER:
As you probably already know, Raid 0 is striping, meaning that if you write a 100K file to your raid, it "stripes" that file across both drives. 50K on one drive, 50K on the other. Raid 0 does this for every file it stores.
The main advantage to Raid0 is that both drives are involved in reading and writing files, which speeds up reads and writes significantly. It's a Raid configuration designed for speed, not reliability.
The main disadvantage... is that files are always split up onto both drives in stripes. If you lose either drive, then the whole Raid 0 is dead - you just lost ALL of your data, unless you have some pretty-good data-recovery software than can rebuild raids.
A few years back I (stupidly) based my whole computer on a 3-way Raid 0 array, with 3 330GB drives. It ran as fast as lightning (this pretty-much predated SSDs), and for the 2-3 years I ran it, I experienced multiple system crashes, power failures, etc. without the array ever failing. That was probably half luck, and half good quality components (WD black drives, good quality motherboard with reliable bios, etc.).
One day while formatting a new separate drive, I accidentally picked the wrong drive and started formatting part of my Raid 0. I hit the power switch immediately but the damage was done - my Raid 0 was fried. Luckily I was able to manually reconstruct the Raid with a recovery tool ( if you're interested in the tool, see http://www.r-studio.com/ ), and recovered about 75% of my data. But it was a painful, painful process.
Bottom-line: I wouldn't recommend raid-0 unless you're really desperate for speed beyond what SSDs can provide, and you are either prepared to backup your data regularly, or you don't mind taking risks.
Cheers;
Wire
my sister deleted all of my pics off my camera?
Q. we just came back from a family reunion and i need the pictures by today, but i dont want to pay $20-$40. is there any softwhere that i can get them all back and i can save the pictures on my computer for free?
A. If you've just deleted them then it would be easier to recover all the data, but if you performed total formatting, it would be more diffucult.
Besides, before recovering, choose another partition to store the info.
Few programs to perform restoration:
Data Doctor Recovery PRO - FREE
(system requirements: Power Data Recovery is able to runs on all Windows platform. 486 or Pentium-class processor IDE/SATA/SCSI hard drive 64MB RAM (128 MB recommended) Windows 98/Me/NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista, 100 MB of free space. A second hard disk is recommended for recovery.)
Power Data Recovery 4.1.2 - FREE
(system requirements:Windows operating system. 486 or Pentium-class processor IDE/SATA/SCSI hard drive 64MB RAM (128 MB recommended), 100 MB of free space. A second hard disk is recommended for recovery.)
R-STUDIO Network Edition 3.6 - Data Recovery Software - NOT FREE
ARAX Disk Doctor Data Recovery - NOT FREE
(Data recovery from all Windows file systems: FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, NTFS, NTFS5, NTFS Encrypted Folders, etc.
Data recovery from NTFS Encrypted Folders (EFS).
Recovery of lost data from deleted or damaged partitions.
File recovery on hard disk drives: IDE, ATA, SATA, SCSI
Data recovery on flash memory cards: Compact Flash, Sony MemoryStick, Secure Digital, etc.)
Data Recovery from damaged, deleted, formatted or reformatted partitions
Data recovery of compressed, fragmented and encrypted files on NTFS partitions
Recovery of partitions lost by virus attack
Recovery of partitions with damaged Master Boot Record (MBR)
Virtual RAID Disk Array Reconstruction (RAID-0, RAID-1, RAID-5, Spans)
USB Hard drives and other removable devices are supported
Dynamic Disk Volumes are supported
National language characters in the filenames are supported
Advanced search by file name, file date, mask, size range and attributes
Visible representation of file or folder recoverability
Ability to preview file*s contents before the recovery
Disk Hex Editor displays and allows to edit content of any sector on the drive
Two types of drive and device scan: Simple Drive Scan (fast) and Advanced Drive Scan (slow)
Ability to look for a particular partition type (FAT, NTFS) in the Advanced Device Scan
Files and folders can be recovered to any (local or network) drive accessible by operating system
Create and work with raw and Compressed Disk Images - representing whole drive in one file
Virtual Editing of any drive*s parameters to perform data recovery in manual mode
Save and Load Advanced scan results
Modify the properties of existing, found or virtual partitions.)
I think that pictures can be restored successully without any problems.
GL.
Besides, before recovering, choose another partition to store the info.
Few programs to perform restoration:
Data Doctor Recovery PRO - FREE
(system requirements: Power Data Recovery is able to runs on all Windows platform. 486 or Pentium-class processor IDE/SATA/SCSI hard drive 64MB RAM (128 MB recommended) Windows 98/Me/NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista, 100 MB of free space. A second hard disk is recommended for recovery.)
Power Data Recovery 4.1.2 - FREE
(system requirements:Windows operating system. 486 or Pentium-class processor IDE/SATA/SCSI hard drive 64MB RAM (128 MB recommended), 100 MB of free space. A second hard disk is recommended for recovery.)
R-STUDIO Network Edition 3.6 - Data Recovery Software - NOT FREE
ARAX Disk Doctor Data Recovery - NOT FREE
(Data recovery from all Windows file systems: FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, NTFS, NTFS5, NTFS Encrypted Folders, etc.
Data recovery from NTFS Encrypted Folders (EFS).
Recovery of lost data from deleted or damaged partitions.
File recovery on hard disk drives: IDE, ATA, SATA, SCSI
Data recovery on flash memory cards: Compact Flash, Sony MemoryStick, Secure Digital, etc.)
Data Recovery from damaged, deleted, formatted or reformatted partitions
Data recovery of compressed, fragmented and encrypted files on NTFS partitions
Recovery of partitions lost by virus attack
Recovery of partitions with damaged Master Boot Record (MBR)
Virtual RAID Disk Array Reconstruction (RAID-0, RAID-1, RAID-5, Spans)
USB Hard drives and other removable devices are supported
Dynamic Disk Volumes are supported
National language characters in the filenames are supported
Advanced search by file name, file date, mask, size range and attributes
Visible representation of file or folder recoverability
Ability to preview file*s contents before the recovery
Disk Hex Editor displays and allows to edit content of any sector on the drive
Two types of drive and device scan: Simple Drive Scan (fast) and Advanced Drive Scan (slow)
Ability to look for a particular partition type (FAT, NTFS) in the Advanced Device Scan
Files and folders can be recovered to any (local or network) drive accessible by operating system
Create and work with raw and Compressed Disk Images - representing whole drive in one file
Virtual Editing of any drive*s parameters to perform data recovery in manual mode
Save and Load Advanced scan results
Modify the properties of existing, found or virtual partitions.)
I think that pictures can be restored successully without any problems.
GL.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
