Can RAID Systems Fail?

Sidney · 6th April 2005, 02:36

RAID undoubtedly offers more data protection than non-RAID disk systems.
However, the management of the disks and the data distribution across them
can be complex. Complex redundant systems can suffer failure, most often
not a fault of the technology used or the design of the array, but most
likely because of its failure to correctly apply these systems which leads
to a single point of failure causing disastrous data loss.

http://www.viperlair.com/articles/editorials/raid/

6th April 2005, 07:04

I have a simple raid 0 setup on my computer 3.0 g cpu 800 fsb @ 2x80 gig ata 133.
I have tried several times to do a repair install of my XP Pro OS but it won't not let me. Maybe I just do not know the proper procedures. TXS. Kolonel

jmke · 6th April 2005, 07:36

that article is a little bit short in my humble opinion; and not really usefull;

avoid RAID 0 for any important data/OS/progs, only use it as scratch disk.

most secure setup would be RAID 1 for OS drives; RAID 0 for scratch drives; and RAID 5 for data drives

6th April 2005, 08:17

keep in mind that RAID doesn't cover power failure nor corruption on the drives.

wutske · 6th April 2005, 08:39

you can also use raid 0+1 wich uses 4 disks, is fast and secure and the advantage to RAID5 is the better read speed.

jmke · 6th April 2005, 09:15

Quote:

Originally posted by TeuS
keep in mind that RAID doesn't cover power failure nor corruption on the drives.

uhm power failure = UPS

corruption of software is not RAID's job to correct/prevent

@HardFreak: RAID5 is more space for less money

6th April 2005, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by jmke
uhm power failure = UPS

corruption of software is not RAID's job to correct/prevent

not every person with a RAID setup has a UPS. I run a raid5 setup with XFS partitions, both very sensitive to power failure. I should get a UPS indeed. I also meant that your harddrives could have bad clusters, that's a hardware error RAID doesn't prevent

Quote:

Originally posted by HardFreak
you can also use raid 0+1 wich uses 4 disks, is fast and secure and the advantage to RAID5 is the better read speed.

RAID5 offers the best read speeds fyi, write speeds are sometimes significantly lower because you have to calculate the parity checksum

jmke · 6th April 2005, 10:56

uhm; if one of your HDD's has bad clusters then that HDD will be flagged by RAID 5 system as failing/failed. FYI

there's something as CRC you know

your comments about "power" are off-topic as RAID is not meant to prevent damage due to power failures...

7th April 2005, 11:46

could you like use raid 0+1, with 2 fast drives used as the raid +, and slower ones for the raid 1, kinda seems fast, cost effective, and secure

7th April 2005, 11:47

*obviously it should be raid 0 instead of raid+, but couldn't edit because of this being in the news section

6th April 2005, 02:36	#1
Sidney [M] Reviewer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,730	Can RAID Systems Fail? RAID undoubtedly offers more data protection than non-RAID disk systems. However, the management of the disks and the data distribution across them can be complex. Complex redundant systems can suffer failure, most often not a fault of the technology used or the design of the array, but most likely because of its failure to correctly apply these systems which leads to a single point of failure causing disastrous data loss. http://www.viperlair.com/articles/editorials/raid/ __________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

6th April 2005, 07:36	#3
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 82,497	that article is a little bit short in my humble opinion; and not really usefull; avoid RAID 0 for any important data/OS/progs, only use it as scratch disk. most secure setup would be RAID 1 for OS drives; RAID 0 for scratch drives; and RAID 5 for data drives __________________

6th April 2005, 08:39	#5
wutske Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Apenland Posts: 2,069	you can also use raid 0+1 wich uses 4 disks, is fast and secure and the advantage to RAID5 is the better read speed. __________________ /me = Hardfreak My Blog: [W]eblog

6th April 2005, 10:56	#8
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 82,497	uhm; if one of your HDD's has bad clusters then that HDD will be flagged by RAID 5 system as failing/failed. FYI there's something as CRC you know your comments about "power" are off-topic as RAID is not meant to prevent damage due to power failures... __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Accordance ARAID 2200-GP RAID 5.25" Bay	jmke	WebNews	0	4th February 2009 15:20
SansDigital MobileStor MS2UTN+ RAID Enclosure	jmke	Portable Storage, Games, Consoles, Laptops, Phones, Multimedia and Gadget News	0	22nd January 2009 15:25
CoolIT Systems Extends Liquid Cooling Technology to the Workstation/Server Market	jmke	WebNews	0	23rd October 2007 18:45
Build a Cheap and Fast RAID 5 NAS	jmke	WebNews	0	2nd August 2006 08:58
The RAID 6 Storage Bodyguards	jmke	WebNews	0	2nd January 2006 23:25
Chipset Serial ATA and RAID performance compared	jmke	WebNews	0	8th December 2005 11:11
Promise Technology Demonstrates RAID 6 And SATA 3G Solutions	jmke	WebNews	0	3rd March 2005 10:27
ATI is graphics provider of choice for new OEM PCI Express systems	jmke	WebNews	0	22nd June 2004 16:28
ABIT Announces Partnership with PWX Systems	jmke	WebNews	0	13th January 2004 13:14
VIA Announces the VIA VT6421 PCI Serial ATA RAID Controller	jmke	WebNews	0	13th January 2004 10:12

6th April 2005, 07:04	#2
kolonel Posts: n/a	I have a simple raid 0 setup on my computer 3.0 g cpu 800 fsb @ 2x80 gig ata 133. I have tried several times to do a repair install of my XP Pro OS but it won't not let me. Maybe I just do not know the proper procedures. TXS. Kolonel

6th April 2005, 08:17	#4
TeuS Posts: n/a	keep in mind that RAID doesn't cover power failure nor corruption on the drives.

7th April 2005, 11:46	#9
GIBSON Posts: n/a	could you like use raid 0+1, with 2 fast drives used as the raid +, and slower ones for the raid 1, kinda seems fast, cost effective, and secure

7th April 2005, 11:47	#10
GIBSON Posts: n/a	*obviously it should be raid 0 instead of raid+, but couldn't edit because of this being in the news section