let's talk about raid 0 is it practical or just a meme?

>>60845105
It'll increase your I/O speeds by about 40%-50%

>Is it da meme guize? EX DEE

raid is not a meme friend. Please try to rephrase your query over at >>>/g/sqt

>>60845222
On the other hand, if one of the disks corrupt you're going to have a hard time recovering your data.

>>60845105
ZFS with weekly or daily if your hardware is good enough scrubbing.

>>60845241
He's talking about RAID 0, you dumb fuck

>>60845105
>is it practical or just a meme?
Depends what you do. Shitposting on 4chan, you could probably be fine even with a USB 2.0 stick are your main drive.

>do SSDs make it obsolete?
Why would they? You still increase I/O speeds and throughput.

File: 1436049011199.png (66KB, 141x177px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 141x177px

>>60845246
wow, rely meks u fink.

eva fought abut maken a utube chanal with all ur nowlege?

>>60845301
>Why would they? You still increase I/O speeds and throughput.
Sure, but SSDs are pretty fast already. There must be diminishing returns on this

>>60845105
http://www.raid-calculator.com/

File: raid-10.png (60KB, 1246x664px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1246x664px

>>60845246
Put it in RAID 10 faget. Or, backup your files.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-10 at 6.53.45 PM.png (1MB, 3360x2100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3360x2100px

>>60845105
>do SSDs make it obsolete?
you do realize you can make a RAID 0 out of SSDs. pic related.

>>60845474
Not until you hit the bandwidth a 8x PCIe slot can deliver.

>>60847127
how fast is your computer

File: Workstation.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>60847149
Dual Xeon E5-2660 v2s, 160GB RAM, dual GTX 980s, HP 560SFP+ NIC, Areca 1883ix-24 RAID card.

>>60847170
What do you do with all that?

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-10 at 7.06.20 PM.png (1MB, 3360x2100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3360x2100px

>>60847229
run lots of VMs

File: Boot Disk.png (40KB, 866x746px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 866x746px

>>60847229
With the write cache enabled

>>60845105

>is it practical
Only if you dont care about your data and plan on loosing it forever.
>or just a meme?
Yes, it is.
>do SSDs make it obsolete?
Yes, they do. They only time you should use raid 0 is if you are in a pinch and dont have another drive fast enough or large enough for the task at hand.

File: 1289277266221.jpg (38KB, 407x341px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 407x341px

>>60847266
>CPU Used in GHz

Oh my kek

>>60845105
RAID 0 is totally stupid every single way you slice it.

Go RAID10 if you need additional speed or don't bother.

>>60845246
This. Read this twice if you think RAID0 is a good idea.

>>60848601
>i dont have backups
>the post

raid1+0 (i.e. raid 10). actually my SSD just recently crashed. luckily all the media was safe on the raid; too bad I was too stupid to backup the ssd

File: 17991810_1537521646271827_6730740188023418155_n.jpg (5KB, 241x209px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 241x209px

>>60847266
>CPU
>used: 8GHz , free: 35GHz

>>60847266
Are you running a small business with that?

>>60848750
>i cant perform basic multiplication

>>60848791
homelab

>>60848798
>multiplication
>implying that reaction had anything to do with the arithmetic

>>60848798
Why would you state how many cycles all the processes take than saying the percentage of CPU use?

>>60848902
Why would you state how many cycles all the processes take than saying the percentage of CPU use?
Because vCenter is designed for clusters, and all the nodes can have different CPUs. Using Ghz is the best short of a proprietary metric which takes in to account IPC.

>>60848423
Yes ESXi really is that dumb. It's just one of many reasons KVM is superior.

>>60848959
see >>60848937 retard

>>60848601
>RAID 0 is totally stupid every single way you slice it.
Not necessarily. For something where you need fast I/O but don't need to worry about keeping data long-term - rendering intermediate files in video production, for example - RAID0 is fine. For most other use cases, you're right though. It's speed at the cost of reliability.

>>60848423
top fucking kek

>>60848423
>>60848750
It's not like the frequency does not imply cycle count.

OH WAIT...it does, your posts are retarded.

>>60848959
what would you like? percentage? that's not accurate for clusters though

you try to be a VM fag so badly but you're just a dumbass in the end

mommy bought you your VM box so you can make minecraft and utorrent servers on it?

>>60847266
>bixnood
guess you wish now you would have blurred that out

>>60849515
>guess you wish now you would have blurred that out
why would i care?

>>60848987
raid is for uptime, it doesn't matter the configuration you have to backup anyway, given working backups doubling the risk of failure may be acceptable

>>60849646
Raid also is good for creating large single volumes w/protection. Generally its cheaper than buying a single drive (if it even exists depending on how much capacity you need) But yeah you do still need a separate backup in case the whole array/server dies.

RAID0 made more sense when we ran our OS on Raptors. It still has a place but it's not as useful nowadays thanks to SSD.

>>60849734
>But yeah you do still need a separate backup in case the whole array/server dies.
Tape is great for that. People are lazy though and don't understand that RAID drives like to fail around the same time.

>>60849739
HDD or SSD, it doesn't matter, RAID0 is very useful for it's purposes
you think since we transitioned to SSDs other things didn't grow in size also?

>>60849646
>raid is for uptime
Some people use them for the uptime, some use them for speed, some for redundancy, some for having a large single volume with some protection, as >>60849734 says.
>>60849780
>don't understand that RAID drives like to fail around the same time.
My (admittedly limited) experience is that even so you don't tend to get more than one drive in an array die at the exact same time; you've usually got enough time to replace the dead one before another goes. And there are ways to somewhat reduce this risk; using drives of different ages from different batches and sometimes even different manufacturers.

>>60847017
what's the point when RAID 5 exists? Literally the same with less drives

>>60849921
Raid 5 is good however it has one glaring pitfall, write speed takes a hit compared to raid 0/1/ due to how it calculates parity/bits during every write. Raid 10 has no such write hit. Now for small home servers w/ fast dual core or higher cpus software raid 5 is perfectly acceptable. Also the larger you grow the array (ex - 8,10,20TB) the longer the time it takes to create the array under raid 5 due to all that bit calculation I mentioned before.

>>60849921
It really isn't. They're fundamentally different, and each with their own pros and cons.

>>60850003
If you're going to talk about large arrays, RAID 10 is retarded to use there, you should be using RAID 6 as it can withstand two disks failing at the same time whereas RAID 10 only has a chance rather than a gaurentee of doing so.

>>60849790
I didn't mean to imply that it isn't. What I meant was if you look back to 780i and things like that RAID0 was almost mandatory (definitely the go-to) for high performance computers. SSDs made it a non-issue for a lot of people.

From memory there was some teething issues with SSDs in RAID0 on X48 and X58 when they were new. I could be mistaken though it was ten years or more ago now.

>>60849921
RAID6 is better than RAID5 in my experience, but >>60850003 explained the benefits of RAID10 already.

>>60849882
For sure, but in a home environment you're less likely to get that drive swapped in time.

One of the sites I work at has no technicians on site over the weekend. Someone will get notified if something breaks but everything is backed up to tape pretty frequently to be safe.

Currently I run a 9TB raid 5 array (4 x 3TB). That's as large as I plan to go under raid 5. If I need more space down the road I'll just create a separate Raid 1 array. (I've got empty drive bays)
Creating the array the first time was a time consuming process and that was before I actually started the whole data migration phase. But when it was all done and I had a fresh backup done taken from the new array I breathed easier knowing that my data was safe (or as safe as you can get without going into overkill and making managing it all a mess)

File: shake-weight.jpg (21KB, 570x214px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 570x214px

I have RAID 0 on 4 SSDs. Vrooooom

>>60850071
>For sure, but in a home environment you're less likely to get that drive swapped in time.
Maybe. In my experience at home - which is limited, I grant you - there has been enough time. In fact, last time I had a drive in the array die, it was only the one that went. I wound up swapping all the drives out for larger ones anyway, since I decided to take the excuse to increase capacity. I'm still using those drives elsewhere actually, still going strong.

And the time before that, two drives from the array did die, but with a considerable amount of time between the two.

File: _2017-06-10_18-34-41.png (7KB, 504x103px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 504x103px

All in raid 0 cause who doesn't want to live dangerously

>>60850216
>I wound up swapping all the drives out for larger ones anyway
Good man. You did it the right way.

>And the time before that, two drives from the array did die, but with a considerable amount of time between the two.
It's really not THAT common but it's something to keep in mind. At a consumer level you don't need to think too much about it honestly.

In higher demand/priority systems it starts to get more common. At that point you should be running backups anyway though really.

>>60845105
I use raid 0 for an at home database.

Actually its quite nice, it roughly doubled by lookup speeds.

The recovering a data in case of failure isnt an issue, I back up files and the data itself is more or less static.

If I wasnt a poor fag I would probably raid5 tho.

>>60845222
checked.

doubled my query speed on SQL database when I went from single ssd to raid 0 ssd

>>60845246
backup files

>>60847017
this

>>60847266
>AD.BIXNOOD.NET

lel

>>60850315
>It's really not THAT common but it's something to keep in mind.
Well yeah, but people tend to go on as if using RAID means it's guaranteed that at least two drives will fail at the same time. I know that in a professional setting it's basically your job to worry about it to that degree, but people really need to get some perspective on actual likelihoods.

>>60850569
>people tend to go on as if using RAID means it's guaranteed that at least two drives will fail at the same time
It's because it's statistically much more likely that it'll happen.

>In a study of about 100,000 drives, the probability of two drives in the same cluster failing within one hour was four times larger than predicted by the exponential statistical distribution—which characterizes processes in which events occur continuously and independently at a constant average rate. The probability of two failures in the same 10-hour period was twice as large as predicted by an exponential distribution

It's not as big a deal as people sometimes act like it is, but it's something to be aware of.

>>60851137
>It's because it's statistically much more likely that it'll happen.
I'm certainly not disputing that, just pointing out that there's a significant gap between "statistically much more likely" and "absolutely will happen".

>>60851342
>I'm certainly not disputing that, just pointing out that there's a significant gap between "statistically much more likely" and "absolutely will happen".
Yep. I completely agree.

People definitely tend to exaggerate it online. Like I said, it's just something to be aware of. While it's definitely not inevitable it still pays to have a backup. You know how computers can be. Anything can happen sometimes.

Right now I'm using four laptop drives in RAID 0 to emulate a single drive worth a damn to dump all my temp project shit.

>RAID
>redundant array of independent disk
>raid 0
>striping

really makes you think

>>60845474
Nope. Drives still can't even max the latest SATA bandwidth.