Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAID 0 vs single HDD  (Read 4870 times)
whitesockcat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« on: August 31, 2013, 11:43:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm trying to decide if I should keep my photos (not applications) on a Raid 0 (2 3TB/7200) or a single disk (3TB/7200)

I shoot tethered to capture one and use Lightroom and Photoshop for asset management / retouching. Files are between 20-500MB. All my apps are on an ssd.

I know a raid is "faster" but, in real world application, am I going to notice enough of a difference in speed (I know it's somewhat relative) to justify the downsides of raid? 
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1924



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2013, 02:07:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Properly set up, RAID 0 should be almost twice as fast. As for downsides, what downsides (other than the cost of a 2nd disk)? Yes, you double the chance of a crash, but doubling a very small chance is still a very small chance! You will have a good backup system in operation either way. I have been running an external RAID 0 for 3 years without a single glitch. I recommend MacGurus.com, very smart and helpful - and despite the name they do PCs as well.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2013, 04:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Raid0 for PS scratch or use a separate small ssd on sata 6.
Raid0 for image files for LR. Use WD raptors or black or equvalent.
Daily automated backup !
Frank
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3684


« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2013, 06:41:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm trying to decide if I should keep my photos (not applications) on a Raid 0 (2 3TB/7200) or a single disk (3TB/7200)

I shoot tethered to capture one and use Lightroom and Photoshop for asset management / retouching. Files are between 20-500MB. All my apps are on an ssd.

I know a raid is "faster" but, in real world application, am I going to notice enough of a difference in speed (I know it's somewhat relative) to justify the downsides of raid? 


Hi,

On a 2 disk system, I'd use a much simpler software disk mirroring software solution. That will provide you with a 'spare' copy of a fully working disk. When a RAID setup fails (e.g. controller), all is lost, regardless of how many discs were involved. And because you've got a RAID, that doesn't mean it can be easily recovered when multiple drives can't be restored as a set.

Separate drives with data, if at all accessible, will always be readable (each additional copy will INCREASE the probability of recovery). Compromised RAID drives will not (each additional single copy will DECREASE the probability of recovery, specifically in a RAID 0 configuration).

IMHO, of course.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2013, 09:18:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a very fast SSD for OS most apps and working files (most recent shoots still being edited).  When I'm done editing they move to a big RAID 0 array.  Shoots older than a couple years that I rarely access move to single large drive for storage.  Single to RAID 0 is day and night but still nothing as good as a fast SSD.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1959


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2013, 02:18:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I know a raid is "faster" but, in real world application, am I going to notice enough of a difference in speed (I know it's somewhat relative) to justify the downsides of raid? 
I tried a RAID 0 disk set a few years back. There was a noticeable, but small, speed improvement in loading in big files. About a year later something went wrong(I can't remember the exact details, but I think a bios setting defaulted to automatic detection and changed the disk settings) and the RAID set was lost. OK I didn't loose any original data, but restoring from back ups took far, far longer than any time the RAID had saved me over the year.
I've never used RAID 0 since.

Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 616


« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2013, 03:22:56 AM »
ReplyReply

You may find the following link informative.
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance/

Personally, my macs run on SSD's with raid-1 external thunderbolt storage (mirrored, no striping, no parity). I tried a raid-0 with raid-1 backup but found the speed difference negligible.

LaCie (and OWC) make both USB3 and Thunderbolt external drives that can be configured either way (raid-0/1), hot-swappable disks,  and can also be (Thunderbolt) daisy chained.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2013, 03:46:57 AM »
ReplyReply


Hi.

First check how disk intensive your applications are. My applications hardly use disk. SSD is a good suggestion, in my view, for system and scratch.

I would suggest RAID 5 as a option, fast, reliable and big.

Best regards
Erik

I'm trying to decide if I should keep my photos (not applications) on a Raid 0 (2 3TB/7200) or a single disk (3TB/7200)

I shoot tethered to capture one and use Lightroom and Photoshop for asset management / retouching. Files are between 20-500MB. All my apps are on an ssd.

I know a raid is "faster" but, in real world application, am I going to notice enough of a difference in speed (I know it's somewhat relative) to justify the downsides of raid? 

Logged

whitesockcat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2013, 08:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

restoring from back ups took far, far longer than any time the RAID had saved me over the year.

The same thing happened to me, which is why I'm reevaluating whether or not I really need raid 0
Logged
xocet
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2013, 04:23:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi.

First check how disk intensive your applications are. My applications hardly use disk. SSD is a good suggestion, in my view, for system and scratch.

I would suggest RAID 5 as a option, fast, reliable and big.

Best regards
Erik


A word of caution - RAID5 is not really suitable for SATA drives with capacities greater than 1TB.  The reason is that in the event of a drive failure (you can lose one drive without data loss), the rebuild times are long enough that there is a real risk of having another drive error, destroying your RAID set.  RAID 1 is safer, as rebuild times are quick enough, and the write performance is good.  If you have the hardware,  RAID 6 is good with large capacity drives, as it can have two drive failures, but there is a write performance impact.

If you need speed, SSD or hybrid drives are the way to go.
Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2013, 04:27:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi.

First check how disk intensive your applications are. My applications hardly use disk. SSD is a good suggestion, in my view, for system and scratch.

I would suggest RAID 5 as a option, fast, reliable and big.

Best regards
Erik


I am not so sure that RAID 5 is the best option.  I have now, for the third time, lost my online photo library due to a RAID system (rather than an individual drive) failure.  This time it was an R6 Pegasus with 6 x 2TB drives configured as 4 + 1 + a hot spare.  Bullet proof you would think?  Not when the RAID controller falls over and apparently takes all 6 drives with it - or so the utility provided claims.  In any case it is all gone and is unrecoverable.  If I had backed run the library on two mirrored drives this would not have happened.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
studio347
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2013, 10:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

"Simplicity" is getting more important as I have used computer. Simple is a very good thing while working with computer. There are already many complex things Smiley
I mean... raid 0 is not that complex, but a single SSD is simpler!
I have used SSD( system and capture, separate SSDs) and raid 0 of 3 HD(photoshop work disk).
If I need to set it up new, I would go with very good SSD only_ 3 separate SSDs( system, capture, and working). I'm planning to replace the raid system with a single SSD(500GB).
And using big HDs as frequent back_up ... such as time machine, chronosync, super duper, manual copy for archival...
Considering my overall file size, it's doable. If the amount of files in a working disk, is very big, still raid system might be more appropriate...
even though I think it's a good idea to keep the working disk not too big and to make more frequent archival if possible.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2013, 10:32:47 PM by studio347 » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2013, 11:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Fortunately the prices of hard drives have recovered since the floods in Thailand put a big hurt on the market and SSD's are lower than ever..  In light of this I run my own system this way:

My working files are processed on SSD only used for this purpose.  My lightroom catalog/caches are on a 1tb hybrid drive and when 1tb SSD's come down enough in price I'll get one for this purpose.   And my current archives are mirrored both on my server and a RAID 1 in the box.  My server is backed up in their own bucket on my Amazon S3 account.  I'll probably change this to their cheaper long term solution when I have the time to set it up. 

The RAID 1 is redundant.. and with image storage redundancy is a good thing.  But with my server (actually faster than my RAID 1), and my server being backed up.. I'd be okay if it wasn't there.

And you're right, there are issues with RAID arrays.  This is why I wouldn't skimp with drive selection, power supplies, RAID cards,  or even UPS devices.   I would get good proven gear over the latest fastest gear.

The best money I spent in a long time was on my Synology 1813+ populated with reds.  So far, over 2 months now.. it hasn't even hiccuped and it's cloud and FTP features are great.  At 110-125mbps it's more than fast enough to use as a work drive if I must, and it can directly connect at speed to 4 other workstations.  More if you don't mind losing a bit of soeed.  A very nice product.

In the end it's all about how much money you want to throw at the solution and how accurate your throws are. 

Good luck.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad