RAID configuration

[tv_news_guy]

preacherallen1
I have a similar problem to yours. What I have done is configured two of my external facing hard drive bays as "hot swappable". Here's a link to an example http://www.usb-ware.com/sata-hot-swap-i ... ve-kit.htm
I have set aside a couple of big (200gig) drives as "Keeper" drives. My working drives stay in that pc until I need to write something out to save or archive. Then I swap the drives.. write to the keeper disk what I need to save, and then swap it back out and back to work on my project.
If I need something that is archived.. just plug the drive in... and drag what I need to my working folder.
This has worked great for me. I have about 3/4 of a terrabyte internal in that comp, and this way I can use every bit of space for my projects under construction.
Hope this helps

Bill tv_news_guy
Non-linear editing is half art/half brain damage

[htchien]

RAID 0 might possibly be of some use to our forum members but this must be weighed against the risks of one drive fails then both drives have failed.

That's why there is a RAID 0+1 configuration available (merge multiple drives into 1 large logical drive and still have the mirror ability), however it might not be effective because we will need at least 4 physical drives for 1 logical drive in RAID 0+1.

Regards,
H.T.

[sjj1805]

Wouldn't that be counter-productive though?

As I said I do not intend to mess with RAID because for my purposes it looks like the dangers outweight the benefits. So I am looking at this from an intellectual angle.
RAID 0 looks like it will speed things up as the workload is spread evenly between two hard drives - therefore a possible increase in speed.
RAID 1 appears to slow things down because what is being written to 1 hard drive is then being duplicated onto another.

So a RAID 0 + RAID 1 combination would cancel each other out wouldn't it?

[Gorf]

RAID 0 looks like it will speed things up as the workload is spread evenly between two hard drives - therefore a possible increase in speed.
RAID 1 appears to slow things down because what is being written to 1 hard drive is then being duplicated onto another.

There's no nett change in write speeds with RAID 1, but read speeds are improved with both schemes, while RAID 0 also improves write speeds.

RAID 1 write speed is the same as non-RAID, because the controller feeds the data to both drives simultaneously. RAID 1 read speed is faster than non-RAID because the controller stripes the read from the two drives.

RAID 0 sees an improvement on both read and write for the same reason.

RAID 0 + 1 will have no nett improvement on read speed. over either RAID 0 or RAID 1.

[troppo]

I am running a SATA raid setup. My motherboard has the ICH7R southbridge chip, the 'R' stands for RAID. It also has an IDE RAID chip from Gigabyte. I have set it up in RAID 0 with 4 250Gb SATA HDDs.
It is a pain to set up, and makes my periodic reinstalls of XP Pro a complicated hassle. I tried using a disc imaging program, but because of the RAID setup on the IDE channel the imaging program couldn't 'see' the RAID drive to install on. Now I have too much data on my 1000Gb RAID to be able to back it up and un RAID it. So fingers crossed one of the drives never fails or I lose everything, gulp!
So, RAID1 is good for security. RAID0 is probably not necessary unless you need the super fast write speeds it offers. I wonder about HDV though, it might pay off there.

[sjj1805]

troppo
With your configuration would back up systems like Windows XP's built in "Backup" Program
Start | Programs | Accessories | System Tools | Backup
Work as though you had a non RAID setup?

I am thinking along the lines that you may move to another computer at some time in the future either due to the natural evolution of computers or due to a disaster such as a broken motherboard. How would programs like "Backup" handle this situation?

Obviously anyone with RAID0 would need a system to back up important DATA just as non RAID0 users also need a backup system.

Would you know the answer to another poser that has always stopped me from ever experimenting with RAID. I have the impression that once I ran the RAID configuration software for my motherboard the system BIOS is altered.
Would this then prevent me or anyone else trying out RAID from reverting to a standard non RAID configuration?

[Devil]

Some RAID systems do have a BIOS configuration, but they are reversible (in the system config or through a proggy on floppy/CD). Mine loads up before Windows. I think some are purely in Windows (how?).

Nowt to be afraid about

[Gorf]

I must be missing something here, regarding backups (mirrored RAID or otherwise) and video editing.

Don't we have a secure backup in the form of source tapes? I only ever backup finished DVDs, DVP projects, extra resources (such as audio files and stills) and my C drive.

If the whole system went belly up, I'd have to capture the tapes again, but getting back to a point where I'd be fully operational again would take 90 minutes* per one-hour tape, plus render time and transcode to DVD - depending on where the crash happened.

Seriously - my daily backup fits on a CDR.

You have to do a two-minute piece of preparation to establish a start point on each brand new tape, and 30 seconds of admin after each tape has been captured, but it's worth it to be able to use all my hard drives for WiP.

[sjj1805]

Gorf
I am looking at the wider aspect of backing up other DATA on the computer, spreadsheets, Word Documents, Photographs, Music files, Access Databases etc.

[troppo]

Steve, it depends on the RAID controller. My IDE RAID controller uses a seperate setup module not included in the bios. It handles the disks, whether one or more, and 'gives' it to the bios as one disk, regardless of it being a RAID or not. My SATA RAID controller does the same thing I think. There is a switch in the bios to turn either one on or off, but that can be changed easy pesy.
And, yes, I have looked at the backup app, and even set it to run just as a test, but always when I haven't been around, and for some reason it has never worked. The problem is, I have too many files on my 1000Gb RAID disk to back up anywhere! I just bought a 320Gb USB HDD so I might be able to get rid of heaps of dormant media files. And yes, it does pose a problem, I cannot move the RAID array to another computer, and I am in deep schtick if my motherboard goes belly up! In the future I think I will set up a smaller RAID0 to handle capture and HDV editing, and use the rest of my disks as ordinary storage. Ideally the whole lot would reside in a seperate PC with gigabit ethernet and with lots of fans and using a dedicated controller... $$$!
Gorf, yes sure we have all the source tapes. Except I don't, I copy over mine and rely totally on the integrity of my HDDs to preserve my precious data. Am I stupid? yes.

[Gorf]

Gorf, yes sure we have all the source tapes. Except I don't, I copy over mine and rely totally on the integrity of my HDDs to preserve my precious data. Am I stupid? yes.

For Steve's requirements (photo's, documents etc), gereral work-in-progress media assets and projects, and for completed video projects (final edit), I use DVDR. Once the work has been signed off, I can merrily delete my tapes (I don't, but I can if I want to - I have no intention of revisiting old projects).

As far as I can see, the only reason to backup captured rushes is to avoid the time wasted capturing them again - and the way I figure it, the amount of time I've saved over all the projects by working this way outweighs the amount of time I've saved having to recapture tapes after hard drive crashes.

I wouldn't say "stupid" - if the drives aren't in a machine, they aren't adding to their active life, so as long as they are being stored with due care they should still work OK. I've just gone back to a drive that hasn't been spun up in two years and it worked fine.

[shoalhaven]

I have just installed a P5WD2-E Premium Motherboard. It comes with the InteICH7R RAID controller. They claim that in the RAID 0 config., the two identical hard drives perform the same work as a single drive, but at a sustained data transfer rate double that of a single disk alone.

Is this possible only with SATA drives, or can identical IDE drives be configured in this manner?

Ed

[Devil]

The transfer rate is not double for a 2-drive RAID 0 config, but usually between 1.5 and 1.8, at least with the IDE drives I had with a Promise ATA100. I still question the utility of RAID 0 with modern drives which are usually amply fast enough without RAID, knowing you are doubling the risk of a catastrophic loss of data, which is why I changed my 2 x Maxtor 60 Gb for a 1 x 200 Gb.