Hi, I currently have x2 1TB hard drives in my system, currently with no raid setup. I have a lot of data stored that I cannot afford to lose so I am looking at implementing Raid 1. I have an X58-UD3R Gigabyte motherboard, which has an onboard controller. Anyway, I am looking at the best way of doing this. Firstly, I am creating a system image back up and then configure Raid 1. When this is done, I will use the Windows Restore facility to restore my data back on to my PC. My questions are, if I created the system image on a single disk, will I encounter issues restoring this to a raid 1 configuration? Also, I do a lot of gaming on my PC and I am happy with it's current level of performance. I am not that interested in terms of improving performance but I don't want it to degrade. Will raid 1 make my system any slower? If it stays at it's current speed, then I am more than happy.
If im not mistaken when you pair hard drives in a Raid it reformat s both drives to create it. So you need to have a 3rd disk to have all your data on so you dont loose it when you raid the 2 1TB HD. It may degrade performance a little as you are writing to 2 disk instead of 1. As im sure people will tell you Raid is not a valid back up method it is redundancy. I have a Raid 1 on my server as server 2008R2 is a bitch to configure (and i don't mind not having the extra 200gb drive). If you want a true back up you can use an external hard drive, and back up all your important data to that. I have W7 Home premium and it does not support back up to a network drive, so i use Sync Toy to sync all my important folders to my server. (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...36-98e0-4ee9-a7c5-98d0592d8c52&displaylang=en) is the link to Microsoft for the download. This may not be the answer you were looking for but I hope it helps.
If you're bothered about losing data, why you even bothering with RAID at all? Just have a decent back up system. RAID is NOT back up. It will protect you from drive failure, but nothing else. You will still be able to accidentally delete files. You can still have data corrupted by viruses or from application crashes.... it won't give you any extra protection against file loss than using a single disk will... except to protect you against disk failure. Get a decent second hard drive, and instead of RAID1, just use it as a back up drive and get a copy of Acronis. You won't listen to this advice though... no one ever does.
i love that everyone around here is so quick to claim "raid is not backup". raid can be configured in a variety of ways, including using on demand sync options which DO let you restore your drive to a previous state, thus protecting you from software AND hardware failures.
RAID1 mirrors the content of one drive to the other. If data is removed from one, it is removed from the other. How is this back up?
Yes.. I've read the thread. Now explain how RAID1 is back up please? How can RAID1 restore the drive to a previous state? That would require some form of existing back up external to the RAID... which is exactly what I'm talking about, but RAID1 alone, is not back up.
i have already explained it, but let me go over it again, really slowly. in a raid 1 with on demand sync, your data is not continuously written onto both drives. there is a master and a slave drive. the master drive is used for all reads and writes for normal usage. the slave is only written to at the users discretion. that way, if you "mess up" your files on a software level, you can restore the master drive from the latest synced version on the slave. this protects you from software whoopsies. its essentially the same as using an external USB drive, only without the slow transfer speeds and clutter of having an external drive (plus, the OP already HAS the 2 internal drives...so no additional purchases in this case).
You will run into problems, Windows will BSOD upon startup if you don't do a little fix. Follow this guide and you're golden. Should be good for 7. Array with two or three drives, one of them designated as dedicated backup drive. Normal usage is done with one or two, extra drive is added when backups need to be done. Let them sync, yank the extra drive and store in a safe place.
So in other words.. it's no different from having a conventional back up. Great. So if it doesn't sync until the user demands it, what happens if one drive fails BEFORE you've synced it? Surely the point of RAID1 is redundancy, so all info is always synced, so a drive failure results in no data loss and you can still carry on while the RAID is rebuilt after a new drive is added. If you want back up, get back up... I don't see the point in on demand sync therefore, especially as RAID1 offers to real performance benefits. Why not just have a decent, proper, automated back up system.... or proper redundancy. This on demand sync seems like a waste of time... it does a half assed job of redundancy, and back up. If your priorities are no down time... get RAID1, RAID5 whatever.... if your priority is secure data... get a decent back up system. If you need both.. get RAID1, and then get a decent back up system for it. Simple.
SATA is faster than USB...transfer/backup/recovery times are shorter. the OP already has all the equipment for on-demand RAID 1. backing up is simpler as the RAID controller handles it all at the push of a button. the same thing that happens if your drive fails when your using an external drive as backup: you lose your most recent data. it does the same half-assed job an external drive does. i honestly dont understand why your so vehemently opposed to on-demand RAID, while pushing external backup. they are essentially the same...with on-demand RAID being faster, more convenient, and cheaper in this case.
Thanks for all your replies guys. Just to add, I will not be using Raid 1 as my sole back up. I apologise for the confusion, blame my badly chosen words. I have a local 1TB local drive and a 1TB NAS drive for back up purposes. I do have data I cannot afford to loose hence why I wanted to use an additional solution. However, after much consideration and input on this thread, I will stick to using my externals for backing up data. I am currently looking at a portable solution and I have found this - http://www.scan.co.uk/products/icy-...enclosure-to-esata-usb-plus-5-docking-station I wanted to upgrade to a drive/enclosure with esata implemeted to improve speed (which was my main reason for considering raid 1. I wanted to implement an SSD within the next 6 months for my applications, so in the long term my solution will be this - SSD - For O/S & Applications x2 1TB internal drives configured to raid 0 Seperate standalone drive in docking station above (2TB drive, holding all data) Syncback Pro Software - Complete raid array backed up to 2TB back up drive That way, I get maximum performance, full back up with the ability to easily take it offsite if required. I know I have completely strayed from what I originally posted, but I have been doing more research today and this maybe is the best option for me. Always like to hear from the posters on here, so if you think it is a load of old ****, please say and suggest something better Thanks all
I think Pook was referring to this form of conventional back up, not necessarily an external USB drive: That also has the benefit of the faster SATA transfer speeds, as well as the ability to use drives of varying sizes (not necessary in the OP's case, but is why I personally use this method as I can back up 2 drives onto 1 2TB drive).
i guess it just depends on whether you want your slave drive to be software controlled or hardware controlled. personally, i would think hardware controlled would be safer (isnt part of the reason of a backup to protect from software failure?). but again, it accomplishes essentially the same thing. but it sounds like the OP has come up with a method which better suites his needs anyway...so the whole thing is moot
I wasn't referring to USB. I was referring to SATA drives, or networked storage, or eSATA. I have a dedicated server over Ethernet and can back up at 100MB/sec over it without compression. I wasn't even considering USB for a second. Well.. I don't even have to push a button. It's scheduled and automated. It just seems to me that having RAID1 that doesn't sync until you tell it to, is practically useless. When one of those drives fails, you just know it will be when you've forgotten to sync it. Not so... because I have raid AND back up. I can just carry on with a degraded array. Same with normal RAID1. If he had RAID1 AND back up, a drive failing wouldn't even be an issue. It is the same as having a fast back up system, yes, except worse, as it's not scheduled, and you can forget to sync it (which you will at some point). It is NOT the same as RAID1 at all. RAID1 will simultaneously mirror the data (as it's being written) so a drive failure will usually result in no data loss. On Demand sync means you have to manually sync it... or in other words.. just back it up. On Demand RAID is not faster than having a dedicated SATA drive or eSATA drive at all, it's slower, and has less features. A dedicated back up program can be scheduled to run whenever you want and be fully automated, and can also be set to compress your back ups, consolidate back ups, and run incremental back ups. On Demand sync can do none of this What On Demand sync is doing, is trying to make RAID1 and back up the same thing.. which it can't. As a result, it's neither RAID1, or effective back up. RAID is not back up... even with this On Demand.. then it just becomes back up... and is really no longer RAID any more. Also, a proper back up system can back up all your drives, not just one of them. On Demand sync only backs up itself, but what if you add other hard drives for storage one day? Every drive will have to be RAID1 and be using On Demand sync. It's far more elegant to just have a decent back up system. The only advantage to RAID1 (real RAID1, not this on demand nonsense) is lack of downtime should a drive fail. As it only takes 30 minutes to restore from a decent back up system, RAID1 for a home system kind of becomes pointless, as there is no performance advantage. With on Demand, if the primary drive fails and you forgot to sync it.... you've lost data. It's neither effective back up, or a RAID as it's back up ability, and it's redundancy have been compromised if it's not regularly synced. To get the same level of redundancy you'd have to constantly sit there syncing it all day. Also, even if you did, it will then proceed to mirror itself which takes longer that it would if it was real RAID1. With real RAID1... when I write a 300k file to the disk, it is instantly written to the mirror. With this, if I sync it every day, there will be masses of data to mirror.. this takes time, which leaves a window of opportunity for failure to happen before your data is safe. Anyway... this is all academic, as the OP has seen sense and got a decent back up system. What's on the other drives? If it's just storage, then I'd forget about RAID0. If it's games, then perhaps that could work well as game maps etc will load a little faster. You mention the "RAID array" being backed up... but are you not planning to back up your system drive as well? Remember, if you are using this RAID to install games and apps onto, you can't just re-install windows and carry on should your SSD fail. You will also have to re-install all the installed apps that were on the RAID. This kind of makes back up pointless. Your data will be safe, but it take forever. Back up all drives and you can restore everything within around 30 minutes. It will be as if nothing has happened. I'd use Acronis as my back up software as well.
