DJPoLo Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 My 5th RAID array from OWC crashed, taking with it all of my HPSC footage. I have no faith in mirrored RAID theology. It seems when they crash, they ALWAYS both crash. I am pissed off and frustrated. Ventingly Yours, -Chet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adweisbe Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 My 5th RAID array from OWC crashed, taking with it all of my HPSC footage.I have no faith in mirrored RAID theology. It seems when they crash, they ALWAYS both crash. I am pissed off and frustrated. Ventingly Yours, -Chet This is not uncommon/unusual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Correlated_failures http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder.html Two disks is not a lot of disk to throw at the problem. Unless you really need a lot of usable storage (say greater then the capacity of a single disk) I wouldn't hesitate to throw more discs in with RAID-1. Start with three and add a fourth a year or two down the road. I have no idea what OWC is or why this is in the "What I like" section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bell Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 What kind of hardware are you running? What RAID level 0, 1, 3, 5, 10? From the brief description you gave it sounds like data corruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam B Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 raid 50 is the way to go if you can swing all the drives involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think you put in the wrong section... unless you like getting pissed. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshF Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 If you are just using it for storage and not application/OS RAID 5 with one additional drive for hot spare is the way to go for adv home user. About all the redundancy a normal user will need and you only lose 1 drive to parity and 1 to the hot spare. Also you know what happens when you always have a spare just waiting on hand, yep, it NEVER gets used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 It sounds like you are using RAID 1, which is also called a mirror drive and is RAID in name only. Unfortunately, most of these so-called RAID setups use a single standard controller and rely on the OS to make the copy - and this doesn't even qualify as RAID even though it is sold as such. In my experience this is not a very good setup - you are better off spending just a little bit more for an external drive and doing periodic backups. If you are going to do RAID, you need to be doing RAID 5 or better with a true RAID controller. And even then I do backups of critical data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) We use raids all the time for storing motion video storage, but we use a raid of 9 drives with the 9th drive being the parity drive for the others and if a drive fails the parity drive takes over and it also generates an alert for the user to start taking corrective action. Upon installing the new drive there is a rebuilding process that can take a while but it works,. The raids are made by a company ciprico, the assy is scsi and all the drives are either scsi or ide(I am sure by now they are sata) These system are fairly expensive but they work and are made to run 24/7 and are industrial strength in build. Edited August 7, 2009 by scirocco38s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Chet... call me. There are a lot of mis-used and/or misleading uses of the term "RAID" (Redundant Array of Independent Disks), some of which are most definitely not redundant! If this is what you've got, you have 0, nada, zilch, nein protection! ETA - here's a reasonable reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID RAID 0 is a simple stripe - but its quite a bit less reliable than a single disk drive. Any failure of a drive in the stripe takes the whole stripe out, making reliability 1/n (single disk reliability is n). Most of the other single stripe arrangements (commonly, RAID 5) require two disk failures to take the stripe out, but pay varying penalties depending on your workload and if the stripe is healthy or not. Depending on the hardware you have, mirrors of RAID 0 stripes (ie, RAID 0+1) may be your best bet (again, workload dependent) As far as what's "best" - it entirely depends upon the needs you have from the storage sub-system. There is never a "one size fits all" solution. Thus the "call me". Did I mention that I do storage for a living, essentially? Edited August 7, 2009 by XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLM Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Chet... call me. There are a lot of mis-used and/or misleading uses of the term "RAID" (Redundant Array of Independent Disks), some of which are most definitely not redundant! It's "redundant array of inexpensive disks" but that's ok Dave. I'm sure you're just tired from working on the Deck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJPoLo Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 If this is what you've got, you have 0, nada, zilch, nein protection! Yup, that's the one. I'll give you a ring... Oh, and, yes, this should have been posted in "What I hate". My bad... -Chet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) It's "redundant array of inexpensive disks" but that's ok Dave. I'm sure you're just tired from working on the Deck! Not anymore, its not.... Hasn't been that for quite a while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID - "More recently, marketers representing industry RAID manufacturers reinvented the term to describe a redundant array of independent disks as a means of disassociating a "low cost" expectation from RAID technology." ETA - I should add that, since basically all spindles became effectively "inexpensive", calling them "inexpensive" disks is a bit... heh... redundant... isn't it? Edited August 7, 2009 by XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 If this is what you've got, you have 0, nada, zilch, nein protection! Yup, that's the one. I'll give you a ring... Then you're absolutely right... In the case of RAID-0, RAID offers you less protection... Sorry that happened to you, man... Not laughing at your expense Shout at me at any point.... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 a 5th occurrence would make that redundant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLM Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 It's "redundant array of inexpensive disks" but that's ok Dave. I'm sure you're just tired from working on the Deck! Not anymore, its not.... Hasn't been that for quite a while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID - "More recently, marketers representing industry RAID manufacturers reinvented the term to describe a redundant array of independent disks as a means of disassociating a "low cost" expectation from RAID technology." ETA - I should add that, since basically all spindles became effectively "inexpensive", calling them "inexpensive" disks is a bit... heh... redundant... isn't it? Well, maybe I've been doing this too long, LOL! Some digging on Google looks like it was changed to "independent" sometime late last year, early this year... Guess I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRW Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 ReadyNAS NV+ I have one of these on the home network with 4 500GB drives. Unit alerted me to a drive about to fail, and was able to replace it without issue. Took a couple hours to rebuild the drive image from the others. Very happy with the unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Well, maybe I've been doing this too long, LOL! Some digging on Google looks like it was changed to "independent" sometime late last year, early this year... Guess I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. They were talking about "independent" and "inexpensive", and the interchangeability between terms back in '98... At least, they were when I started into storage stuff around then.... I remember that clearly because one of my jobs was pre-sales, and there was a lot of hub-bub around how it was a "marketing" thing to move away from "inexpensive" (the Wiki article touches on that) along with lots of eye rolling, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLM Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Well, maybe I've been doing this too long, LOL! Some digging on Google looks like it was changed to "independent" sometime late last year, early this year... Guess I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. They were talking about "independent" and "inexpensive", and the interchangeability between terms back in '98... At least, they were when I started into storage stuff around then.... I remember that clearly because one of my jobs was pre-sales, and there was a lot of hub-bub around how it was a "marketing" thing to move away from "inexpensive" (the Wiki article touches on that) along with lots of eye rolling, etc... Very true. "Independent" has been bantered around for quite some time, even back in the early to mid '90's. You'd see it on different message boards. Back then they were always corrected to "inexpensive" by the IT/Server types though. My latest MB manual was copyright '07 and still refers to it as "inexpensive". I wish I could find the manual for the system I just did a good friend back in April to see what it says. Anyway, I did find a reference that it has officially been changed to "independent" but no luck finding a date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now