If you have a modern system you really don't need it. Remember, RAID 0 was invented way back when all there was were slow HDD. When SSDs came out a single one was many times faster than the fastest RAID HDD. Now that we have PCIe it is many times fast than that SSD and even RAID 0 SSD. Everybody wants more speed, but few user have application where they really need it. RAID 1 is certainly still valid.
@@radicalxedward8047 Thee are many levels or RAID each with its own unique functions. Speed tends to be (at least used to be) the most sought after of those levels.
RAID 2 exists but is basically obsolete because it uses its redundancy disk as a source of ECC, which modern hard drives already have included. RAID 3 and 4 work like RAID 5 does in that they have 1 disk's worth of fault tolerance through parity, but they store all of the parity on one disk rather than distributing it across them all like RAID 5 does. This makes 3 & 4 much slower on certain read/write operations. Don't know if they're considered obsolete, but they are generally inferior to RAID 5 and are thus rarely used.
Hahahahahahahaha YES! I have to back up my po.... family memories quiet often but I prefer to back up most things on a NAS or portable drive, something so that if I need it urgently in another location I can have it there without the need of a desktop since I often use a laptop in different locations also. NAS/P drives are a bit more costly though whereas 1TB could be 40-50 dollars for internal, a pdrive could be 70-80... and an internal drive of 4tb is roughly 150-170, but a pdrive is roughly 180-250.
C Porter LOL, when do you need por...Family Memories UGENTLY in another location? LOLL, ''oh shii old lady walked in on me in the computer room, i better take this situation to the laptop and the bathroom'' LMAO. This made my day man. loll
@@pistol0grip0pump If you hadn't already learned, he's still owner and a big part and contributor to videos of LMG, but he hired a CEO to take care of CEO things.
Tom Riddle: "Can you only RAID 0 the data once? For instance, isn't seven..." Professor Slughorn: "Seven! Merlin's beard Tom! Isn't it bad enough to consider splitting one drive? To rip the data into seven pieces... This is all hypothetical, isn't it, Tom? All academic?" Tom Riddle: [Smiling] Of course, sir. It'll be our little secret."
I'm Taking PC Repair and understanding almost everything (becuase of ltt and ncixtt) butt RAID and im so glad you have something like this. The only reason im going to get A+ certified is because of you guys and I legimently want to thank you so much.
If you study computer science, you will find that there are many acronyms that have multiple options in terms of what each letter stands for. For some, there is not agreement amongst the experts.
Inexpensive is history, Independent is right. And there is another mistake, it is not called RAID 10 (ten), but RAID 1-0 (one-zero). It is just written RAID 10
well if you look at how much history / legacy Cisco put into there certifications I would't take on what i'ts called that heavy as long as people know what it does and what to do when setting it up it could have the name of yellow dog or something like that as long as it does what it say on the tin and that people know how to set it up but bottomline I think it depends on who you ask and for some the name is one thing and to others another thing it's a bit like religion or something like that
+retrogamefox independant wouldn't be the right word because in a RAID 0 there is no independent drive, i think independant nor inexpensive is correct, but in general people would only raid drives if they are affordable otherwise they would stick with one drive and the price of SSD's is continuing to drop so I prefer inexpensive as well.
i would say independent over inexpensive as well because price points on disks change based on a number of factors and "expensive" is a very relative term to who is doing the purchasing, whereas "independent" would make far more sense with the though that you have X number of independent disks working together/in groups. depending on the raid level, not even all the disks manage the same function, just in the same grouping.
Marius Tancredi Ha! Inexpensive. Lol. How come SSDs are cheap. I doubt Intel X25-E is cheap, for a gigabyte I could eat... for a full day. Even a full week if I (am dedicated) want.
Maybe I shouldn't say this cause I'm gona look stupid but... Dr Barnabus I couldn't work out were the ten came from. Need to lay off the pain killers me thinks...you completed my life for this evening lol thanks. :)
Thank you for that clear, concise explanation! I'm a photographer and people keep saying I need a separate RAID set up to back up my files, but no one actually explained what that was in a simple manner. This was very helpful.
+TheBigchekka No, I just never understood the concept until Linus explained it. But now that I understand it, I find it difficult to explain why I didn't understand it before.
You're the man Linus. Keep it up. Thanks again. Haven't had to set up a system with redundancy, but a 3 minute video was exactly what I needed. Nothing more and nothing less. 100
two errors: 1. minor mistake about raid 1: raid 1 gives you more read performance and IOPS. 2. huge mistake about raid 10: what you descried in the video (stripe between the two disks, and mirror the strips groups) is raid 0+1, or mirror of stripes. raid 10 is actually strips of mirror. it doesn't make much difference in a setup of 4 disks (since, well, you only get 2 groups and each group only get 2 members) but if you have say 6 disks, raid 0+1 will separate those disks in two raid 0 groups (3 each), and stripe between the 3 disks, whereas raid 10 will separate disks in 3 groups, each groups contain a mirrored (raid 1) disks, and data strips between groups. while you MAY loss up to half of the disks in raid 10 (vs 2 in raid 01) can still recover, your fault tolerance is really only one disk. reliability wise , raid 10 is better than raid 01, but they are nothing compared to RAID 6..
I think this is the first video by LMG I have clicked on from a search with the intention of finding information. Every other time I tune in it's not as targeted, just "they probably posted something interesting, let's watch it."
Thanks this video was just what I was looking for. I wasn't sure with RAID 1+0 if i would lose still have half the total capacity or 1/4. Now I understand with 4- 2TB drives in raid 1+0 I will have 4 GB of capacity.
This guy is great, I am a big fan. The acronym RAID should just stand for Redundant Array of Independent disks (RAID) as the word "Inexpensive" is subjective as I wish flash storage was inexpensive. Although I agree that you can cluster inexpesnive disks together, a cheap solution could be costly.
So that's why you have all those hoop earings. You're not gay but smart. Its a raid setup. If you lose one or two you got backups.if you lose three tho, you're screwed and will look kinda straight with just one earing
+christopher jones O fuck me... I read this, scrolled back up and realized I hadn't even noticed all his 'cranium accessories,' then I laugh way too hard and long. Such a great comment.
I have read that for a raid with multiple hard drives next to each other, you should only use NAS or Enterprise hard drives as they have vibration detection. Because cheap hard disks without vibration detection are actually only intended to be alone in the PC case or individually in an external case.
I think you'd need 4 drives but I would not mix SSD and HDD personally. I would make the SSDs into a RAID 0 array and then have some other backup solution to back up the SSD array to the HDD. Just my opinion though. You may not notice a huge bottleneck but I would expect it.
Linus man, I gotta thank you for all your help in helping me learn about components and similar things. I'm building my very first PC (currently have an Alienware :( ) later this year, and couldn't have done it without you man!
I have already setup my computer with Windows 7. It's all installed and updated, drivers and all. If I want to take this to a raid 0 is it possible for me to apply my install across both HD'S without having to reinstall the operating system from scratch? Do I simply back up my system and reboot from USB back up hard drive. Could it be this simple?
***** oh I was just curious as to which purpose each served.. so the internal drive is your backup drive for making backups of the 3 striped SSDs? I'm still trying to learn how these different raids work.
Can i use Raid 0 in 2 SSD's which will be used to boot my OS (Hakintosh PC) ! and i also want to make a RAID 1+0 for my storage with 4 HDD's ! Is it Possible ? My PC config is : Processor : Intel i7 4790k 1150 socket Motherboard : MSI Gaming 9 AC motherboard 1150 socket Ram : 16 GB DDR 3 Ram GSkill Ripjaws Storage : As Mentioned above (HDD Disks are WD Black Drives GPU : AMD Sapphire Fire Pro V5900 What kind of Raid controller will i have to Use and How much will it Cost ??
it actually stands for 'redundant array of INDEPENDENT discs' and has nothing to do with the price of said discs Mr Linus sir! i am sure that everything pc-wise is inexpensive for you, but that is not the case for the most of us!
RAID 0 does not make it less reliable, because each drive is being used half as much so less chance of failure. Plus when a single drive fails you lose everything anyways. I have been running RAID 0 on my Alienware R4 17 for 7 years. No problem.
"You're striping these two and striping these two and mirroring these two against these two." This makes it sound like you're creating a RAID 1 of two RAID 0's, which is RAID01 (A mirror of stripes). In RAID 10, you're making a RAID 0 of two RAID 1's (A stripe of mirrors). So, data comes in and you split it up; half goes to the first RAID 1 and the other half goes to the second RAID 1. Everyone says the performance of RAID 10 and RAID 01 are the same but that doesn't make sense to me. If you take a 10GB file in RAID10, it will get striped first which sends 5GB to each array. In RAID01, you would be sending that 10GB to each array to get striped. Sure, each drive is saving 5GB in either case but surely there must be some transfer of energy/electrons which takes time due to mirroring before stripping? Anyway, RAID01 is not as redundant as RAID10. Always choose RAID10. Always STRIPE the MIRRORS. Don't MIRROR the STRIPES.
Fast as possible on cpu ghz and cores, ie what to look out for or why a lower ghz processor might outperform an older processor of the same tier that has a better ghz rating on the box. (I’m guessing cores, but I’m assuming it’s a bit more complex than just more cores, like sizes or layering/stacking effects what not.)
Linus, not sure how this video came up in my search que but woe it is an amazing video. Even looking back on how you produced videos you had such a passion regardless of what is going on around you; Its simple, pure and directed. The honesty shines through to this day. You have lead me to build 12 computers and all of them posted even if me and the builders were not in the clearest of heads. and yet this video stil rings true as if it were almost the ultimate PC building guide
SO what I would want is RAID 1, which is one drive that's got data and the second would auto backup to it? That's my ideal desire. I'm a graphics artist so having to back up twice is getting to be a PITA. I invested in an external enclosure "NexStar MX" which I have some other NexStar products and all are still working great. Is there a particular order to put the drives into the bays? Back comes out so you have a left and right. So would I load in the drive that's got data on it on the left or right bay? Thanks for the help!
Rainbow Crash Hey! You seem to know quite a bit about it - Should I buy one Samsung EVO 840 128GB or two less expensive 64GBs which together would make the same performance as one EVO?
@Techquickie How would you go about backing up a SSD (boot drive) with a HDD (mirror/backup drive) of the same size? Using RAID 1 or backing up manually to the HDD when needed at your convenience? I hear the RAID 1 option makes the performance go down to that of the slowest drive (the HDD).
So if I heard this correctly, I can set up multiple HDD drives and have them operate on RAID 0 as fast as a single SSD? I mean cost per GB on an HDD is far cheaper than an SSD but A single HDD is so slow compared to a SSD.
RAID stands for Redundant array of independent disks, not inexpensive :) I have a RAID made of 4 512GB SSD drives, I would not call them inexpensive (at least in 2015)
I set up RAID 0 on my PC. I used two Samsung M.2 ssds. I also have two hard drives installed but none of them are visible anywhere (Not even diskpart or in BIOS). Please help me fix this?
Doesn't RAID 0 just double the chance of the drives failing? And the chance of a modern ssd failing is already very slim so does it really matter if I don't backup?
Raid 1 config here. (x2 465gb hd) the thing that sucks about this config is it's delayed. this is due to the 2nd hd shutting down to powersave. once you want to access anything within the drive it will take some time (10 secs) to load. not a big deal right? ..... wrong it's almost every 10 minutes this sucker idles off so that means it's CONSTANTLY always needing to take time to boot up and then load. in other words.... IT'S ANNOYING! how can I remedy this?
If you are operating a Window's PC, there is one possible solution. Go to your power options, (might be called "power plan settings"), if you don't see it on the screen, click on "Change advanced settings", "Hard disk" should be the second option listed, expand that list all the way, and change the time before the computer shuts off power to the hard drive to "never", to do that, just keep clicking the down button. If those are already set to "never" then it might be something that has been put into the HDD by the manufacturer.
Would it work if I have two nas servers with one backing up the other so that I don't have to constantly have to manually transfer files over? If so, how would I go about doing so? I plan on storing each one of them on different rooms so that if any godforsaken thing happens, I will be fine.
a Raptor has better motors and parts, I have had a RAID 0 config for years with my Velocity Raptors, they do not fail and I am not worried. I have had absolutely no trouble on my Windows XPPro SP3 machine with RAID 0/VRaptors. in fact, I don't even use a secondary HD, just twin Raptors. I may be taking a chance, but Vraptors are near SSCI quality and do not fail.
built my own 1u rackmount NAS with 4x hot swap bays... Im thinking some lightweight distro of linux (arch or gentoo, or maybe a bsd variant) using RAID 10, ZFS and running Minio as a S3 replacement.... thoughts?
Wouldn't it be more cost efficient for RAID 10 to have 2 drive in RAID 0 (data striped across both) and 1 drive solely as backup. If both first drives fail, you still have a complete copy of the data, but if the latter drive fails, none of the former drives may fail. But I'd think it's pretty rare for more than one drive to fail at the same time without _all_ drives failing at the same time. Regardless, in regular RAID 10 configuration you've still lose all data 50% of the time where two drives fail (I e. Where failure affects the drives that have the same "stripes" of data). Plus you don't really need the extra performance of the latter drive (unless I'm mistaken about) since you're only using it's there as a backup and you'd presumably only notice the performance when you're trying to restore data to the other drives.
What Linus described was RAID 0 + 1 not RAID 1 + 0 (10). There are a lot of benefits to striping mirrors rather than mirroring stripes. With RAID 0 + 1 if you loose a disk in each array, you loose the whole array because both stripes are broken arrays, with RAID 1 + 0 if you loose the same disks the array will still work because each of the mirrors still has a working drive in the stripe.
You should have added RAID01 as well ;) Bascially RAID10 but different. RAID10 stripes mirrors, whereas RAID01 mirrors stripes. RAID10 has a higher fault tolerance, though. Just FYI.
Hi linus i have a question please. If i configure my 4 bays drives in raid 0 and 1disk fail the data on raid 0 are lost. My question is the all the drives in raid 0 will also damaged and it ca t be use again? What will happen to all hard disks? Thank you very much
