Talk:RAID

Standard Levels - RAID 0

Any disk failure destroys the array, which has greater consequences with more disks in the array (at a minimum, catastrophic data loss is twice as severe compared to single drives without RAID).

I know little about RAID, so am not editing, but it seems to me that the sentence above should read:

Any disk failure destroys the array, and the liklihood of failure increases with more disks in the array (at a minimum, catastrophic data loss is twice as likely compared to single drives without RAID).

Apologies if I'm all wrong on this. Nonukes (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you are right. Go ahead and change it. (Yes, I'm being lazy here :-) ) 24.203.68.10 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Standard Levels - 1 - Mirroring

I reworked the definition of RAID 1 to include the concept of Mirrored Sets, and that protection is at the SET level. . I think the original phrasing did not emphasize this fact, and could lead someone to believe that failure of all but one drive IN THE SYSTEM still protected their data. . Paulmmn (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RAID1 disks being plain old mirror images is the norm, isn't it?

> Additionally, Software RAID1 disks (and some hardware RAID1 disks, for example Silicon Image 5744) can be read like normal disks

I think that should be changed to "most hardware RAID1..", and singling out a particular device that exemplifies this is rather pointless.. I have yet to encounter a RAID1 setup where this isn't the case - Dell controllers, enclosures all produce plain mirror images which can be pulled out and accessed separately, and I think this is the reasonable thing to expect from RAID1.. Examples where this isn't the case, how and why would be more interesting (and alarming). The key benefit of RAID1 is that it's dead simple because if anything falls apart, you still end up with 2 or more mirror images to attempt recovery from one or the other, so "RAID1" devices that don't have this property would be something of a "buyer beware" to point out.

If anyone knows examples of this, or that it's indeed not the norm, please provide details, otherwise I suggest changing "some" -> "most" and removing the example, as there's nothing notable about something that is typical and reasonable.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.205.5 (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move section "Raid is not a backup" to "Problems"

I just do not think this deserves its own section. It should be listed as a criticism of using RAID as a back-up solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzair (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

raid

Three of my five hard drives died, I am running a RAID 5 configuration and after replacing the hard drive I can no longer find my containers nor can I restore the lost data… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.76.215 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Read/Write Benefits

There is no section talking of read or write benefits based on the type of raid as well as how many drives are part of that array. I have added a column for each of these with the data that I could find on RAID0, RAID1, and RAID5. I am still searching for the correct data for the other raid sets. If anyone has that data, please add it.