[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] IDE RAID storage?



At 10:22 AM 9/14/2004 -0400, andy kolovos wrote:
Folks,

Anyone out there have experience with IDE RAID?  I'm entertaining the
thought of creating an IDE RAID set up using an IDE RAID PCI card and a PC
packed with a bunch of disks as a mid-cost-level audio file storage server
(as opposed to dropping the big bucks--which we as a small, independent
non-profit, don't have--on say a Dell Power Vault or some other NAS).  I'd
like to do RAID 5, if that sort of thing can be done with an IDE RAID card.
 However, I am most interested in hearing any experiences--positive and
negative--with using IDE RAID for file (in particular audio file) storage,
and the merits of different RAID levels for audio storage.

Right now we've got stuff saved on a variety of internal and external hard
drives and data CDs, so I'm thinking IDE RAID might not be a bad starting
point for improvement.

Again, I'm hardly expert here, but there are some obvious questions that may need to be examined if not resolved before you go that route.

It's not clear what you're after with RAID. It's not even obvious what sort
of functionality you're seeking - i.e. what level of RAID you plan to use.
If you're only after more drives without more drive letters, then remember
that reliability goes down on RAID 0 as the storage goes up. If any drive
in the array goes out, in first approximation all data are lost. For that
reason, backup will be even more important than otherwise. Of course, RAID
0 does improve access time as well, but I don't see that as a great reason
in archiving. If your purpose is to avoid partitioning a database, be aware
that the advantage of a single, large DB in simplicity trades off against a
slower search; again, usage may dictate design.

If you're going for high reliability, then the backup problem is traded
for  extra cost - whether or not you also buy the added capacity/speed.

I went for SATA RAID 0 - speed was the issue for the RAID configuration,
but I chose SATA at slight increase in cost per drive to leave the
motherboard's IDE ports open for optical drives. (I prefer SCSI, but try to
find a SCSI DVD writer.) The SATA speed advantage appears slight in
practice, but again archiving should not need speed there.

Whatever RAID level you want for whatever purpose, there should be no
reason IDE would be an obstacle in the system you're configuring.


Mike -- mrichter@xxxxxxx http://www.mrichter.com/


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]