Raid Question

OK, I know if the RAID has a failure I will lose the data on the RAID, BUT do
the Hard Drives get damaged as well?? Will they need to be replaced, or is
it a matter of just reload a backup copy and the RAID will be functional
again?

Thanks ~~~ Gunny

"Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
news:F1011811-6ED6-4E37-9341-...
> OK, I know if the RAID has a failure I will lose the data on the RAID, BUT
> do
> the Hard Drives get damaged as well?? Will they need to be replaced, or
> is
> it a matter of just reload a backup copy and the RAID will be functional
> again?

There are different types of RAID, and your question would only apply to
RAID-0, as it has no redundancy - it should really be called AID-0.

If a drive in the array fails, or has a SMART warning, obviously it will
need to be replaced. As the 'RAID failure' that you mention is caused by
this failed drive, the problem is confined to that drive (and in the case of
a striped RAID-0 array, the data is lost as well).

ss.

Is the RAID 0 that hard on the hardware that it destroys or helps in
destroying hardware? What is it in the RAID that is so destructive, that it
destorys HD's before there time? In other words, the RAID 0 is basically
detroying HD's before there time. If this is the case, I know understand why
people do not recommend it.

So in essence, a HD that would last say 2 years while not part of a RAID 0,
may last only 6 months if in a RAID 0. Is this possible????????



"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:

> "Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
> news:F1011811-6ED6-4E37-9341-...
> > OK, I know if the RAID has a failure I will lose the data on the RAID, BUT
> > do
> > the Hard Drives get damaged as well?? Will they need to be replaced, or
> > is
> > it a matter of just reload a backup copy and the RAID will be functional
> > again?
>
> There are different types of RAID, and your question would only apply to
> RAID-0, as it has no redundancy - it should really be called AID-0.
>
> If a drive in the array fails, or has a SMART warning, obviously it will
> need to be replaced. As the 'RAID failure' that you mention is caused by
> this failed drive, the problem is confined to that drive (and in the case of
> a striped RAID-0 array, the data is lost as well).
>
> ss.
>
>
>

Seidell23231 wrote:

> Is the RAID 0 that hard on the hardware that it destroys or helps in
> destroying hardware? What is it in the RAID that is so destructive, that
> it
> destorys HD's before there time? In other words, the RAID 0 is basically
> detroying HD's before there time. If this is the case, I know understand
> why people do not recommend it.
>
> So in essence, a HD that would last say 2 years while not part of a RAID
> 0,
> may last only 6 months if in a RAID 0. Is this possible????????
>
He didn't say anything like that. Please take a reading comprehension course
at your earliest convenience.

Cheers.

>
>
> "Synapse Syndrome" wrote:
>
>> "Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
>> news:F1011811-6ED6-4E37-9341-...
>> > OK, I know if the RAID has a failure I will lose the data on the RAID,
>> > BUT do
>> > the Hard Drives get damaged as well?? Will they need to be replaced,
>> > or is
>> > it a matter of just reload a backup copy and the RAID will be
>> > functional again?
>>
>> There are different types of RAID, and your question would only apply to
>> RAID-0, as it has no redundancy - it should really be called AID-0.
>>
>> If a drive in the array fails, or has a SMART warning, obviously it will
>> need to be replaced. As the 'RAID failure' that you mention is caused by
>> this failed drive, the problem is confined to that drive (and in the case
>> of a striped RAID-0 array, the data is lost as well).
>>
>> ss.
>>
>>
>>

--
What does Bill Gates use?
http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

DUH!
--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Seidell23231" wrote:

> Is the RAID 0 that hard on the hardware that it destroys or helps in
> destroying hardware? What is it in the RAID that is so destructive, that it
> destorys HD's before there time? In other words, the RAID 0 is basically
> detroying HD's before there time. If this is the case, I know understand why
> people do not recommend it.
>
> So in essence, a HD that would last say 2 years while not part of a RAID 0,
> may last only 6 months if in a RAID 0. Is this possible????????
>
>
>
> "Synapse Syndrome" wrote:
>
> > "Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
> > news:F1011811-6ED6-4E37-9341-...
> > > OK, I know if the RAID has a failure I will lose the data on the RAID, BUT
> > > do
> > > the Hard Drives get damaged as well?? Will they need to be replaced, or
> > > is
> > > it a matter of just reload a backup copy and the RAID will be functional
> > > again?
> >
> > There are different types of RAID, and your question would only apply to
> > RAID-0, as it has no redundancy - it should really be called AID-0.
> >
> > If a drive in the array fails, or has a SMART warning, obviously it will
> > need to be replaced. As the 'RAID failure' that you mention is caused by
> > this failed drive, the problem is confined to that drive (and in the case of
> > a striped RAID-0 array, the data is lost as well).
> >
> > ss.
> >
> >
> >

None of the above ... er, below. :-)

A hard drive in a RAID array does not get used any differently than it would
be used as a stand-alone drive. Estimates and projections that a RAID array
may fail sooner are based on chance theory - if one drive has a 100% chance
of failing in two years, then with four drives in use one might be able to
expect a failure in (2 years / 4 drives == 6 months).

I don't agree with the math, nor the underlying assumption. Modern hard
drives are rated in hundreds of thousands of hours MTBF, which means no less
than eleven (!!!) years MTBF. Just because you have four of them does not
mean that the MTBF is now reduced to (11 years / 4 drives == 2.75 years) -
the chance that any one will fail is exactly the same as the chance that any
other will fail. 11 years, mean.

(If you aren't sure about MTBF, google it. Plenty of explanations out there
that tell why drives are rated in this fashion.)

(And no, I'm not going to argue the theory with anyone who posts a rebuttal.
Your electrons, your opinion, take it as you like. <g>)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/


"Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
news:27A7CB65-3833-4C8A-B46F-...
> Is the RAID 0 that hard on the hardware that it destroys or helps in
> destroying hardware? What is it in the RAID that is so destructive, that
> it
> destorys HD's before there time? In other words, the RAID 0 is basically
> detroying HD's before there time. If this is the case, I know understand
> why
> people do not recommend it.
>
> So in essence, a HD that would last say 2 years while not part of a RAID
> 0,
> may last only 6 months if in a RAID 0. Is this possible????????

"Richard G. Harper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> None of the above ... er, below. :-)
>
> A hard drive in a RAID array does not get used any differently than it
> would be used as a stand-alone drive. Estimates and projections that a
> RAID array may fail sooner are based on chance theory - if one drive has a
> 100% chance of failing in two years, then with four drives in use one
> might be able to expect a failure in (2 years / 4 drives == 6 months).
>


> I don't agree with the math, nor the underlying assumption. Modern hard
> drives are rated in hundreds of thousands of hours MTBF, which means no
> less than eleven (!!!) years MTBF. Just because you have four of them
> does not mean that the MTBF is now reduced to (11 years / 4 drives == 2.75
> years) - the chance that any one will fail is exactly the same as the
> chance that any other will fail. 11 years, mean.

You need to take a logic course

>
> (If you aren't sure about MTBF, google it. Plenty of explanations out
> there that tell why drives are rated in this fashion.)
>
> (And no, I'm not going to argue the theory with anyone who posts a
> rebuttal. Your electrons, your opinion, take it as you like. <g>)
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>
>
> "Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
> news:27A7CB65-3833-4C8A-B46F-...
>> Is the RAID 0 that hard on the hardware that it destroys or helps in
>> destroying hardware? What is it in the RAID that is so destructive, that
>> it
>> destorys HD's before there time? In other words, the RAID 0 is basically
>> detroying HD's before there time. If this is the case, I know understand
>> why
>> people do not recommend it.
>>
>> So in essence, a HD that would last say 2 years while not part of a RAID
>> 0,
>> may last only 6 months if in a RAID 0. Is this possible????????
>

MTBF means little to me in a practical sense. It doesn't mean that the drive
I have will be 'average'.
I have had drives fail in minutes and others last 10+ years.
I personally don't see much sense in running a striping configuration with
the fast, large sized drives available today.
Mirroring I can understand for dynamic data that is hard to replace and
can't be backed up every few minutes.
For a home user, neither makes a lot of sense to me.
But Geeks and wanna be Geeks can have fun trying things out.
--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!

Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
"Owner" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> None of the above ... er, below. :-)
>>
>> A hard drive in a RAID array does not get used any differently than it
>> would be used as a stand-alone drive. Estimates and projections that a
>> RAID array may fail sooner are based on chance theory - if one drive has
>> a 100% chance of failing in two years, then with four drives in use one
>> might be able to expect a failure in (2 years / 4 drives == 6 months).
>>
>
>
>> I don't agree with the math, nor the underlying assumption. Modern hard
>> drives are rated in hundreds of thousands of hours MTBF, which means no
>> less than eleven (!!!) years MTBF. Just because you have four of them
>> does not mean that the MTBF is now reduced to (11 years / 4 drives ==
>> 2.75 years) - the chance that any one will fail is exactly the same as
>> the chance that any other will fail. 11 years, mean.
>
> You need to take a logic course
>
>>
>> (If you aren't sure about MTBF, google it. Plenty of explanations out
>> there that tell why drives are rated in this fashion.)
>>
>> (And no, I'm not going to argue the theory with anyone who posts a
>> rebuttal. Your electrons, your opinion, take it as you like. <g>)
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
>> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>>
>>
>> "Seidell23231" <> wrote in message
>> news:27A7CB65-3833-4C8A-B46F-...
>>> Is the RAID 0 that hard on the hardware that it destroys or helps in
>>> destroying hardware? What is it in the RAID that is so destructive,
>>> that it
>>> destorys HD's before there time? In other words, the RAID 0 is
>>> basically
>>> detroying HD's before there time. If this is the case, I know
>>> understand why
>>> people do not recommend it.
>>>
>>> So in essence, a HD that would last say 2 years while not part of a RAID
>>> 0,
>>> may last only 6 months if in a RAID 0. Is this possible????????
>>
>
>