home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
HTPC Projects
Hardware
Mainboards / CPU / RAM
To Raid or not to Raid?
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Scythe42" data-source="post: 516583" data-attributes="member: 95833"><p>If you don't really care about data loss than RAID 0 is of course an option. I still don't recommend it unless you really just use it as a "scratch" disk and never put stuff on it you want to keep.</p><p></p><p>From experience, sooner or later you run out of storage and put something on this array only "temporarily". Then it stays there forever and *boom* the array is gone. Been there, done that. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>Reading/Writing will be spread across the HDs and should give you a bit better IO in theory here but the cost is that the CPU will be more involved. Not so dramatically in a RAID 0 than a RAID 5 though. And it largely depends how good the chipsets handles IO to different drives at the same time. From my experience with onboard RAIDs not very good unless the drives are really slow in general. With some old slow HDs there can be a small benefit.</p><p></p><p>But video streams don't really require that much IO performance as you can stream them over networks easily. But for your "scratch" disk approach it may be worth a try if you're running into IO performance issue. How about trying some benchmarks before you finally decide? </p><p></p><p>For just grouping drives you could also go for a Volume Set in Windows, which basically concats the drives. Once a drive is full the next one is used. This has no impact on CPU or IO. Again not really fault tolerant but shouldn't be as bad as a stripe set if I am not mistaken. I think only data on the actual failed disk and data spanning across disks is lost.</p><p></p><p>For some kind of "scratch" disk this could also be an option.</p><p></p><p>But anything other than RAID 0 or 1 will have a significant performance impact on the CPU.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scythe42, post: 516583, member: 95833"] If you don't really care about data loss than RAID 0 is of course an option. I still don't recommend it unless you really just use it as a "scratch" disk and never put stuff on it you want to keep. From experience, sooner or later you run out of storage and put something on this array only "temporarily". Then it stays there forever and *boom* the array is gone. Been there, done that. :P Reading/Writing will be spread across the HDs and should give you a bit better IO in theory here but the cost is that the CPU will be more involved. Not so dramatically in a RAID 0 than a RAID 5 though. And it largely depends how good the chipsets handles IO to different drives at the same time. From my experience with onboard RAIDs not very good unless the drives are really slow in general. With some old slow HDs there can be a small benefit. But video streams don't really require that much IO performance as you can stream them over networks easily. But for your "scratch" disk approach it may be worth a try if you're running into IO performance issue. How about trying some benchmarks before you finally decide? For just grouping drives you could also go for a Volume Set in Windows, which basically concats the drives. Once a drive is full the next one is used. This has no impact on CPU or IO. Again not really fault tolerant but shouldn't be as bad as a stripe set if I am not mistaken. I think only data on the actual failed disk and data spanning across disks is lost. For some kind of "scratch" disk this could also be an option. But anything other than RAID 0 or 1 will have a significant performance impact on the CPU. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
HTPC Projects
Hardware
Mainboards / CPU / RAM
To Raid or not to Raid?
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom