In other words, we stress so you don't have to. Blogs by Trenton Systems. What is RAID 1? RAID 0 vs. RAID 5 vs. Which RAID is best? What is RAID storage? Graphic: Consequences of disk drive failure in mission-critical applications Total data loss can be especially devastating for mission-critical applications, whereby a potential failure could result in financial loss, public disapproval, serious injury and even death.
There are many RAID levels in use today, several of which are rare. The data segments are stored on one disk drive, as well as the other disk drives in the array.
So, essentially, the more disks in the RAID 0 array, the faster the read and write speeds. Now, why might you want to use a RAID 0 disk configuration? As a result, RAID 1 produces disk drives that are mirrored copies of each other. RAID 1 should not replace regular backups, however. This RAID stuff can get rather complex, huh?
The downside to RAID 5 is that it can only withstand one disk drive failure. RAID 5 v. Otherwise, total data loss occurs. If you value speed most of all, choose RAID 0. Determine your RAID goals by reviewing the following scenarios: Q: Are you a large business or organization with multiple servers and numerous employees who need consistent access to the data stored on those servers?
Conclusion We hope this blog post helped clear up the differences between common RAID levels and how each of them can offer a unique benefit to your program or application.
Topics: RAID. Trenton Systems Blog Our blogs cover the latest ruggedized computing news and company updates. Recent Topics Archive. Subscribe to Updates. Subscribe to our blog. All Rights Reserved. Raid 0. Raid 1. Raid 5. Raid 6. With that in mind, here is a look at the different RAID levels and how they may meet your requirements.
This configuration offers low cost and maximum performance, but no data protection — a single drive failure results in total data loss. As such, RAID 0 is not recommended. Generally speaking, RAID 0 is not recommended. RAID 1 maintains duplicate sets of all data on two separate drives while showing just one set of data as a logical disk Figure 3.
RAID 1 is about protection, not performance or capacity. While this may give sufficient capacity for many small business servers, performance will still be limited by the fact that it only has two spindles operating within the array. Therefore it is recommended to move to RAID arrays that utilize more spinning media when such capacities are required. Data written in a stripe on one drive is mirrored to a stripe on the next drive in the array.
For scenarios with four or more drives, RAID 10 is recommended. In the event of a single drive failure, the system reads the parity data from the working drives to rebuild the data blocks that were lost. RAID 5 read performance is comparable to that of RAID 0, but there is a penalty for writes since the system must write both the data block and the parity data before the operation is complete.
The RAID parity requires one drive capacity per RAID set, so usable capacity will always be one drive less than the total number of drives in the configuration. Usage: Often used in fileservers, general storage servers, backup servers, streaming data, and other environments that call for good performance but best value for the money. Not suited to database applications due to poor random write performance.
A non-parity array such as RAID 10 should be used instead. In RAID 6, data is striped across several drives and dual parity is used to store and recover data Figure 6.
It is similar to RAID 5 in performance and capacity capabilities, but the second parity scheme is distributed across different drives and therefore offers extremely high fault tolerance and the ability to withstand the simultaneous failure of two drives in an array. RAID 6 requires a minimum of 4 drives and a maximum of 32 drives to be implemented. Usable capacity is always two less than the number of available drives in the RAID set. Poor random write performance makes RAID 6 unsuitable for database applications.
RAID 10 offers very good performance with good data protection and no parity calculations. It should be noted, however, that RAID 10 can use more than four drives in multiples of two. Usage: Ideal for database servers and any environment with many small random data writes. Up to one drive in each sub-array may fail without loss of data.
Also, rebuild times are substantially less than a single large RAID 5 array. A RAID 50 configuration can accommodate 6 or more drives, but should only be used with configurations of more than 16 drives. It should be noted that you can have more than two legs in a RAID The first of these two arrays would offer greater capacity as only two drives are lost to parity, but the second array would have greater performance and much quicker rebuild times as only the drives in the leg with the failed drive are involved in the rebuild function of the entire array.
Usage: Good configuration for cases where many drives need to be in a single array but capacity is too large for RAID 10, such as in very large capacity servers.
Dual parity allows the failure of two drives in each RAID 6 array while striping increases capacity and performance without adding drives to each RAID 6 array. Usage: RAID 60 is similar to RAID 50 but offers more redundancy, making it good for very large capacity servers, especially those that will not be backed up i.
We can classify data into two basic types: random and streaming. Random data is generally small in nature i. This is typified by database-type data. Streaming data is large in nature, and is characterized by such data types as video, images, general large files.
Having these two different arrays spanning the same drives will not impact performance, but your data will benefit in performance from being situated on the right RAID level.
This should be checked carefully with the product specifications from the drive vendor to make sure you are getting the performance you think you are getting from your drives. With HDDs it is generally better to create an array with more, rather than fewer, drives.
With SSDs, however, it is advisable to achieve the capacity required from as few as drives possible by using larger capacity SSDs. These will have higher throughput than their smaller counterparts and will yield better system performance.
It is a little-known fact that you do not need to use all of your drive capacity when creating a RAID array. When, for example, creating the RAID array in the controller BIOS, the controller will show you the maximum possible size the array can be based on the drives chosen to make up the array.
During the creation process, you can change the size of the array to a lesser size. The unused space on the drives will be available for creating additional RAID arrays. A good example of this would be when creating a large server and keeping the operating system and data on separate RAID arrays. This would use a minimal amount of capacity from each drive. You can then create a RAID 5 for your general data across the unused space on the drives. This has an added benefit of getting around drive size limitations for boot arrays on non-UEFI servers as the OS will believe it is only dealing with a GB drive when installing the operating system.
The more drives in the array, and the larger the HDDs in the array, the longer the rebuild time when a drive fails and is replaced or a hot-spare kicks in. While it is possible to have 32 drives in a RAID 5 array, it becomes somewhat impractical to do this with large spinning media. When a drive fails and is replaced, only 16 of the drives 15 existing plus the new drive will be involved in the rebuild. This will improve rebuild performance and reduce system performance impact during the rebuild process.
At least three drives are required. RAID 5 can sustain the loss of a single drive. In the event of a drive failure, data from the failed drive is reconstructed from parity striped across the remaining drives. As a result, both read and write performance are severely affected while a RAID 5 array is in a degraded state. RAID 5 is ideal when space and cost are more important than performance. A minimum of four drives is required. RAID 6 becomes attractive when space and cost are important and sustaining multiple drive failures is required.
Read and write performance is increased, but only half of the total space is available for data storage. Four or more drives are required making the cost relatively high, but the performance is great while providing fault tolerance at the same time. In fact, a RAID 10 can sustain multiple drive failures—provided the failures are not within the same subgroup. Performance does not degrade as much as in a RAID 5 array because a single failure only affects one array.
Up to four drive failures can be overcome if each failed drive occurs in a different RAID 5 array. A RAID set offers redundancy and can withstand the loss of up to two disks in each parity set. But when more than two disks in a single parity set are lost, the RAID 0 set breaks, and data recovery is needed. In addition, some of the listed capacity is used for formatting and other functions and will not be available for data storage. Quantitative usage examples for various applications are for illustrative purposes.
Actual quantities will vary based on various factors, including file size, file format, features, and application software.
0コメント