Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
"RAID-0 for a database?" and other HM2 confusion "RAID-0 for a database?" and other HM2 confusion

10-13-2013 , 05:28 PM
Hey guys. I'm trying to decide what kind of a machine or build/buy for my move to Mexico. This thread may be misplaced, but here it goes...

I'm not super knowledgeable when it comes to things like this, but I have read that RAID-0, while being the fastest array, has a higher likelihood to crash and burn than RAID-1, etc. However, everything I have read says that when using HM2 you should use RAID-0. This concerns me because I obviously don't want to lose my HM2 database, but I realize all these people would not be advising SSDs with RAID-0 if they were not confident in its stability...

Can someone smarter than me in this department please explain?
"RAID-0 for a database?" and other HM2 confusion Quote
10-13-2013 , 08:08 PM
You don't need a RAID array for a simple poker PC, at least not for performance reasons. Any modern SSD will be fast enough, assuming it's connected to SATA3 (6GB/s). If your board lacks SATA3, go for a dedicated controller card to gain max performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
Quote:
RAID 0

RAID 0 (block-level striping without parity or mirroring) has no (or zero) redundancy. It provides improved performance and additional storage but no fault tolerance. Any drive failure destroys the array, and the likelihood of failure increases with more drives in the array.[5]


RAID 1

In RAID 1 (mirroring without parity or striping), data is written identically to two drives, thereby producing a "mirrored set"; the read request is serviced by either of the two drives containing the requested data, whichever one involves least seek time plus rotational latency. Conversely, a write request updates the stripes of both drives. The write performance depends on the slower of the two writes (i.e. the one that involves larger seek time and rotational latency). At least two drives are required to constitute such an array. While more constituent drives may be employed, many implementations deal with a maximum of only two. The array continues to operate as long as at least one drive is functioning.[5]
RAID0 uses 2 drives to spread the data, so this makes things faster but not more fail-save. In fact, if one of the drives crashes, the data-parts on the other drive become useless as well. If anything, go for RAID1 for safety reasons. Not that you'd have to though - modern SSDs are just as reliable as HDDs, if not more.
"RAID-0 for a database?" and other HM2 confusion Quote
10-16-2013 , 10:23 AM
Would be a little over-the-top to do a RAID array considering you just want to back up a database. RAID setups are typically just a way of redundancy in servers. So servers host a lot of information: configurations, files, other data, etc. So if something "breaks" then you can just throw in another hard drive to replace fix it.

Now with that said,
RAID-0 = Performance (no back up). If one of the hard drive crashes. You are fudged.
RAID-1 = Mirroring (no boost in speed).

I agree with what Baobhan-Sith said, any SSD (solid state drive) should be good enough. Obviously make sure you have enough processing power, ram, etc. to go along with it.

I don't know to much about HM2, but what I am guessing is that in order to backup all your data it would just require copying it to another source. i.e. - an external hard drive or some sort of cloud storage (google drive or skydrive).
"RAID-0 for a database?" and other HM2 confusion Quote

      
m