Re: [ARSCLIST] IDE RAID storage?

[andy kolovos <akolovos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:23 AM 09/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>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/

Mike and others--

What I'm looking for is a high level of data redundancy and a method of
data storage where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  RAID
level 1, 10/1+0 and 5 seem to promise this, and IDE-based RAID seems to do
so at a much lower cost per gig  than SCSI RAID and the file storage
servers being offered by companies such as Dell.  I haven't looked into
SATA RAID.

I'm tending toward RAID 5 because of its seeming robustness when compared
to the other options.  I also gather with RAID 5 storage capacity is at
around 2/3 the total size of all the discs in the array as opposed to 1/2
the total size with RAID level 1, 10/1+0.

But, in short, what I'm most concerned with is safer data storage.

Having already lost a HDD (thankfully after the data were transferred!),
single disc storage, even when dupicated on additonal HDDs, makes me nervous.

Thanks,

andy
*********************************
Andy Kolovos
Archivist/Folklorist
Vermont Folklife Center
P.O. Box 442
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 388-4964
akolovos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org