|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 11th, 2008, 10:24 AM
|
#1 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 14
|
Raid 0 1 Question
Is there any downside to using a Raid 0/1 software solution, other than reducing storage size. I'm in the middle of building an editing workstation and ready to configure my hard drives.
I'm interested in speed that Raid 0 should provide, but also want the redundancy of mirroring. I currently think the Raid 0/1 solution makes most sense for me, but don't know what I don't know... Will Mirroring (adding Raid 1) be slower than a Raid 0 solution? If so, does it eliminate the Raid 0 speed improvements? Why don't more Video people use this solution? Though the motherboard has a Raid capability, my understanding is that it wont allow you to create a Non-raid Operating system drive, and a raided storage solution. I was planning to do this using Windows Hard Drive Setup Utility. And lastly, Is that doable now that Windows is already installed? MB:P5Q3 Deluxe Wifi Processor:C2Q Quad 9550 2.83 Memory: OCZ 4gig 1333 DDR3 Windows XP Pro Drives: OS = WD 32M 750G Sata 2 non- Raid Media Storage: 2x WD 32M 1Tb Sata 2 Caviar Black Video: Radeon HD3870 Matrox RT.X2 LE |
|
|
|
October 11th, 2008, 10:41 AM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
|
Software RAID can impact performance but with a decent 2Ghz machine or faster you should not notice normally. With that said, Mirroring and Spliting might slow you down a little more. Concider getting a Promise Fast Track Raid Card. Also, At one point I thought it was only possible to do one or the other with software but that could have changed.
In the end I highly suggest utilizing the Mirrioring feature (Raid 1) more than Raid 0.
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second |
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2008, 10:49 AM
|
#3 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,005
|
From what I've been told mobo built in raids are crap. You need to spend a couple hundred on a decent raid card.
|
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2008, 11:40 AM
|
#4 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
|
If the mobo raid is real raid you should be OK, but if it is like most which are a combination of hardware software you can have issues as said.
I suggest looking at the promise cards. they can be had for less than $100 Newegg.com - Promise FastTrack
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second |
|
|
|
|
October 11th, 2008, 12:39 PM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 663
|
Unless your motherboard is really, really cheap, you will not see a performance difference with a $100 promise raid card - which is technically still a software raid. With a $1000 server-class raid card w/ onboard cache, that's when you'll start to notice. Honestly, software raid is pretty good. Doing it from within the windows disk manager is definitely a viable option, and free.
0+1 is not a very efficient use of four drives, you might be better off with RAID5 If the RAID card doesn't have an onboard cache/memory, then it is "fake hardware raid" and is likely no better than your motherboard's This is a real raid card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816116059 This is not: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816132008
__________________
software engineer |
|
|
|
|
October 14th, 2008, 05:00 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,832
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 14th, 2008, 05:27 AM
|
#7 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
|
Interesting stuff. I would have to read up on these more advanced cards to see what the return on investment is for someone who is just doing some video editing on their own. I could easily see the value in a server environment that is feeding out data to thousands of users though.
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second |
|
|
|
|
October 15th, 2008, 11:25 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
In my opinion, SAS RAID is extreme overkill for a video workstation. Stick with SATA and spend the $$ on CPU or RAM.
__________________
software engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2008, 04:06 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,832
|
Quote:
Just my .02 |
|
|
|
|
|
October 17th, 2008, 06:41 AM
|
#10 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2007
Location: KLD, South Africa
Posts: 983
|
I have two 500Gb drives on software RAID 0 and it works great. I don't see the need to buy hardware raid, motherboard raid is hardware too just not dedicated however IMO with workstations as fast as they are there is enough processing power to run everything. I would definitely suggest RAID 0 for active projects, I edit all my raw footage on my Raid 0 drives and as soon as project is complete I copy over to a back-up. There is a big performance increase using Raid 0, my HDV plays smoothly and I can edit 4-6 HDV tracks simultaneously in Vegas.
|
|
|
|
|
October 24th, 2008, 03:16 PM
|
#11 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
You'll need four drives to use raid 10. I probably wouldn't put the boot image in any raid except raid 1. This is often done in high availability workstations.
Raid 1 and 0 and the combo - raid 10 are well implemented in Mac OSX. It might be fine done in software on a PC. Raid 5 and 6 calculate parity, so a better raid card with a cpu is the way to go with these raid levels. There's no parity calc in mirroring or raid 0 striping. Use sata/eSata, or firewire as a second choice. USB 2 is not a good setup for video editing. Considering the cost per meg of storage, a good raid 5 card is looking expensive. The 50% storage efficiency of raid 10 may be less expensive than 80% storage efficiency with raid 5 and a $500 raid card. RAID 0 for scratch is usually going to be the first best use of raid in video editing. I wouldn't use 0 for anything else. I wouldn't use raid 5 or 6 unless I really needed it. The data in these raids is only readable by the raid board. When things go wrong with raid 5 and 6 they go horribly wrong. |
|
|
|
|
October 25th, 2008, 04:07 AM
|
#12 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 260
|
Correct me if Im wrong, but with SATA/eSATA/1394 aren't the speed benefits of RAID 0 diminished the more drives you add? The bandwidth lessens further down the chain. I think the best solution for RAID is having the dedicated card and your drives in a separate box connected via ethernet, like this.
__________________
Reel Impressions Media - Make it more than a memory GY-HD100- 7D- PSC Promix 3- Lectro/Sennheiser- Zoom H4- MPB- CS6/CC |
|
|
|
|
October 25th, 2008, 07:42 AM
|
#13 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
In theory Sata II is still much faster than four drives combined on a port multiplier. I run 2 to 4 drives raid 0 on a mac with a port multiplier and the setup is very fast. If anyone has links to raid 0 performance comparisons with video please post.
Raid 5 or 6 I would do with a highpoint raid card. I'm going to need to do this as I have some 4K files I need to edit. Raid 6 highpoint card: $500, external enclosure: $550, 8 spinpoint 1TB drives: $920, 2 sas to sata cables: $100. I wouldn't do raid 5 or 6 until I couldn't get the performance I needed with the safe use of raid 0. |
|
|
|
|
October 25th, 2008, 07:59 AM
|
#14 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
A double raid 0 setup. No raid card.
Raid A : scratch file Raid B : work files that are backed up at least daily. Copy of source files are always on another drive. 8 drive enclosure with two port multipliers: $360 8 160 gb drives $380 Each raid 0 array has 4 drives _______ |
|
|
|
|
November 30th, 2008, 03:46 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
