From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee RAID was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 22, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Computing / Software / Hardware (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).

Reference websites and other stuff[edit]

Hello, A876! Regarding your edit comment, there are three things:

  • Nobody owns anything, as you've described it for some reason; what I've done is called peer review and articles actually benefit from it. Moreover, it would be great if many more articles had active peer reviewers.
  • Article-level consistency should be more important than using all of the possible variants, and almost all references in this article have domains or hostnames for the values of their |website= parameters (where applicable, of course).
  • Wording can always be better, and small mistakes or typos should be discussed or corrected in a friendly manner instead of beind called "cruft" that's "proudly" put into an article. If there's anything causing a disagreement, we're here to discuss it.

With all that in mind, I've restored the references and improved the wording a bit further. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of mentioning the 'old' name for RAID; which was "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks"? (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Oops! I just found it... Sorry. 01:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Comparisons of RAID 5 and other RAID levels are incorrect.[edit]

In the summary of RAID 4, it is contrasted with RAID 2 and 3. A quote "As a result, more I/O operations can be executed in parallel, improving the performance of small transfers.[2]" This is only true for reads. It is untrue for writes. RAID 4 serializes writes and can perform only 1 at a time. This is because all writes, by definition, must update their respective parity data and in RAID 4 this parity resides on a single spindle. RAID 4 does one write at a time, whether small write or full stripe, exactly like RAID 2 and 3. Worse it does so without their bandwidth advantages.

Further the reference to NetApp's RAID-DP is misleading. It's not RAID-4. Its closer to RAID 6 since each stripe has two parity blocks and one is diagonally formed.

Next, the key advantage of RAID 5 is that its parity is distributed over all the members of the raid string. Unlike RAID 4, a write is not serialized by a single spindle. On a RAID 5 array the number of simultaneous writes can be as a high as 1/3 of the number of members in the string, e.g. a 15 drive string could have 5 simultaneous writes occurring. A RAID 4 string can never have more than 1 regardless of its size. The article leads you to believe RAID 4 has some advantage, when it's all the other way.

Lastly, all of the negative points you make about RAID 5 are true for RAIDs 1, 3, and 4 as well. A read failure during rebuild or degraded operation (one drive failed) can happen for any of them and would be equally unrecoverable. You don't point any of that out.

The comments on RAID 5 have a 'sky is falling' tone and lack the above perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Could add something about assumptions: who is expected to benefit from this? No mention of Windows 7 Pro. User trying to do mirroring (RAID 1) having come across it in the create and format hard disk partitions section of control panel. Well the "system crash" section in this Wiki may be a warning to the newcomer, but Dsimic has labelled my point about power interruption as pretty much a nonsense. Is Dsimic suggesting the assumption that a UPS is what everyone would already have before thinking about RAID? Where would they have come across that knowledge? On a non-mirrored system a power failure is overcome easily at the next boot. It does not require a message sent to Microsoft &c, the way a "crash" may. Soundhill (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Soundhill

RAID 1 offers no parity[edit]

The article states RAID 1 offers no parity, but a mirror is an even parity. I think it adds no value to explain this to the reader, but maybe it can be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While technically correct, RAID 1 is never used as parity. To use as parity, the data from both disks would have to be constantly compared -- a large overhead on reads. But even if a miscompare is found, data recovery isn't possible -- there's no indication of which bit is the wrong one. In theory, this might still be done to detect data errors that were never reported by the disks, but for such errors to be common assumes that the disks are unreliable, which RAID 1 would only make worse by having more disks. So, being overhead to implement and providing little help for a type of error that is assumed never to occur, RAID 1 as parity isn't done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

RAID 1 needs more[edit]

The article says:

> The array will continue to operate so long as at least one member drive is operational.

There is no description of the failure scenario.

For people that are new to RAID, we could use a more complete description of what happens when a drive fails in RAID 1. For instance, is there a light or alarm, etc? Just another line or two would complete the description. Consider that a RAID 1 enclosure for two drives is the least expensive and most marketed RAID enclosure, so the Wikipedia description of RAID 1 is going to bring a lot of views. Thanks (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, any additional description would be highly system-dependent and confusing at least. For example, many people use software-based RAID, as a functionality provided by the operating system, so there's no fancy warning light in case of a drive failure. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

RAID 6 minimum number of discs[edit]

I just dumped the citation needed for "Needs 4 discs". There's a good explanation on the Standard_RAID_levels page, but the summary of a 3 disc system would be: Disc 1: Data Disc 2: XOR of all the data blocks. With one disc that's just a copy of the data. Disc 3: Clever correction based on the data. That need be no more than a copy. (then rotates around the discs for the other data blocks) That's just a 3-way mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number774 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)