New PC build - best hard drive configuration 4

[goombawaho]

I'm building a PC for a customer and I think I know what hard drive configuration I want to use, but wanted to bounce it off everyone. She has online backup so this is about quick recovery or redundancy via RAID1. I will also purchase Macrium to do an image backup. I think all her data and operating system will fit comfortably on a 500GB drive.

1. 250GB boot SSD + single spinning drive for data (OS image backup to spinning drive)
2. 500GB Boot/Data SSD + single spinning drive for image backup destination

3. 250GB boot SSD + RAID1 spinning drives for data (OS image backup to spinning drives)
4. 2 500GB SSDs in RAID1

I guess I'm going to pick option 4 since she doesn't have much data and everything will be on the RAID. Comments?
But what option would you choose if someone had a lot more data, making it too expensive to put it all on RAID1 of SSDs?

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[rclarke250]

of those options, I would choose 4. My system has 2 500GB SSD in Raid0 for speed, and a 2 TB hdd for data, Then I backup to 2 different NAS systems, 1 backup to a local Dlink, 1 backup to offsite Synology.

 

[goombawaho]

Great minds think alike, except I'm choosing RAID1 since the customer prioritizes reliability and she's never had an SSD before so she will blown away versus the old drives she has now.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[kjv1611]

I agree on #4. The ONLY caveat I can think of is (and it's likely a far-fetched thought, but I've read it in the past about RAID): If you get the same model by the same manufacturer that was manufactured about the same time, and there happens to be a malfunction/defect that comes out later and causes it to crash, then they both crash. But if you're also backing up with Macrium or similar, then that risk should be greatly minimized.

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[goombawaho]

I would hope that even if the two hard drives came from the same batch with the same defect or firmware issue, that both of them would not go at EXACTLY the same time. That would be just pure bad luck.


"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[technome]

I guess I'm going to pick option 4 since she doesn't have much data"
Go along with 2 SSD drives in raid 1 for safety, speed will not increase due to the raid 1.

"But what option would you choose if someone had a lot more data, making it too expensive to put it all on RAID1 of SSDs?"
Would go with option #2, with a twist. Use one SSD, clone to a spinning drive, then schedule a file copy program to copy changed files nightly or weekly to the mechanical drive. Easier to get a clone booting then image.
For larger capacity, raid 1 of hybrid drives due to cost. For even more safety, add a drive, clone to it, file copy program to update the clone as above.

Samsung 850 pro... 10 year warranty

........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics, 1949

 

[dik]

I have 3 drives... 250GB M.2 PCIe, a 512GB Samsung 850 pro and a 4TB Seagate... works fine and do bottlenecks...

Dik

 

[goombawaho]

So, you chose "none of the above".

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[Scott24x7]

goombawaho,
Yeah, in my view that's the best option.
RAID 1... 1970 called and they want their redundancy back... This is the worst option. I rarely see RAID 1 setups (especially for "boot") that are properly configured, and corruption on one is replicated to the other, and then you just wind up with 2 bricked devices. (If it's boot, and the partitions aren't properly configured, the 2nd drive will NOT boot properly). Then you're dead.

Use a single VERY FAST boot device. M.2 or SSD on a fast (SAS or at least SATA 3 6gb connection).
Then, if you need BIG space (like 10TB+) use RAID 5 and big drives (6TB, 8TB, 10TB) for storage if you need the redundancy of data. And don't do this in "Windows" RAID, use a REAL RAID controller (suggest ARECA, or similar).

If you don't need this, then this is all academic, by a 10TB Seagate HDD on a SATA 3 port, and partition the drive 512GB for OS/Boot/Apps, and 9.5TB for storage, then get yourself a good backup strategy for data that is IRREPLACEABLE (note, anything you can torrent is therefore NOT irreplaceable). I'm talking photos, development, docs you create. If you create more than 1TB of irreplacable data a year, you're the next Picasso. Done.


Best Regards,
Scott
MIET, MASHRAE, CDCP, CDCS, CDCE, CTDC, CTIA, ATS

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[goombawaho]

RAID5 etc. and "real" hardware raid controllers are more for companies. For my above average home users, RAID 1 is the easiest form of redundancy with OS and data on one array. I only use it for customers that say they value up time. I've never seen a problem with it either (Intel motherboard based RAID). One drive fails and it keeps running.

I would agree that for most people, I'd rather see them boot with a small SSD and have a larger spinning drive to store data on WITH a program imaging the boot drive periodically to the data drive for quick recovery.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[Scott24x7]

There are hardware RAID controllers available for as little as $50 for a 4 port card.
Home users only need 1 drive...
And a backup device, if you want to go that route (i.e. external USB). All the other points for redundancy are not "home user" issues.
Companies are not the only ones using RAID. I have 3 home PCs, all have some level of hardware RAID associated with them... best not to make generalizations about users.

Best Regards,
Scott
MIET, MASHRAE, CDCP, CDCS, CDCE, CTDC, CTIA, ATS

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[kjv1611]

All the other points for redundancy are not "home user" issues.

Isn't that just an opinion? I mean, so what if a home user WANTS their system up 24/7? If they consider it an issue, it's an issue to them. And if you are the one providing the service of building the system, then it's as real of a "need" for you as if a business requested it. Of course, then you say it's best not to make generalizations about users which you just did.

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[goombawaho]

The reason I said home users don't use RAID is that they don't want to pay for it - the extra drive, a controller etc. They go to Best Buy or Costco and buy a cheap desktop. No decision to be made. Only for those who want a custom built PC get the opportunity via a question from me if they want any redundancy.

I had a hard time convincing a business customer that he should get RAID in his SERVER!!

I've got Intel R.S.T. RAID1 for my data drive and it works and I'm happy as a clam. Most people that I see have no backup and no redundancy. They have only their faith in the hard drive gods that they don't lose their data and this is after I have warned them.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[technome]

This is the worst option. I rarely see RAID 1 setups (especially for "boot") that are properly configured, and corruption on one is replicated to the other, and then you just wind up with 2 bricked devices. (If it's boot, and the partitions aren't properly configured, the 2nd drive will NOT boot properly). Then you're dead."

Been doing raid since 1990. In all that time the only corrupted raid 1 was due to the OS. Bricked?, a few due to lightning hits, which would affect ANY drive setup, 3 due to Microsoft software based raids, as is MS should stay out of raid implementation. I do not see where anyone with some knowledge ends up with a couple of bricks. Like Goombawaho, I am happy as a clam with raid 1, raid 10 (not so much with super large arrays).

"I had a hard time convincing a business customer that he should get RAID in his SERVER!!"
Everyone of my clients with servers have raid. I just relate a few horror stories I have seen and they go for raid.
I do not know if I would take on a job where a client did not go for a raid (decent sized businesses). I am not into the emergency call about a failed single drive; if a new client wants to create future drama, they can get someone else, no one can pay me enough to stay up 24, 36 or 60 hours straight to resurrect a machine.



........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics, 1949

 

[dik]

For a normal home computer system, even connected wirelessly, I'm not sure that RAID? has much to offer.

Dik

 

[Scott24x7]

If I really consider the "business case" for home users, that have minimal data (the discussion here has centered around 512gb... that's small). Put your crucial data (photos, docs, development) in a cloud storage, cheap/free like Google or Dropbox. It will only be a few GB not the full drive. Or, get a USB drive for backup. The rest of this is geeky nonsense for home users. The "bragging rights" of a RAID 1 or greater redundancy is wasted money. If you have 4TB+ then you'll want to backup to a device (NAS/second storage) as cost for cloud will get stupid after that. This isn't about performance, RAID 1 is horribly slow compared to any other form. You know if you need RAID, and RAID 1 is an abomination. Least cost effective, highest failure rate.


Best Regards,
Scott
MIET, MASHRAE, CDCP, CDCS, CDCE, CTDC, CTIA, ATS

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[kjv1611]

Scott24x7,

Any reference for RAID1 having the highest failure rate? It got me curious, so I looked, and so far did not find one valid reference.

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[dik]

I use USB sticks and WD Book for backup... not had a problem yet... also a NAS, but, use it for movies.

Dik

 

[technome]

Any reference for RAID1 having the highest failure rate? It got me curious, so I looked, and so far did not find one valid reference."
Because you will not find one, raid 1 is very reliable; granted a raid1 may degrade or a drive may offline, etc, if you do not know how to fix it you might call it a failure.
As to performance, unless your sorting a database or doing a long search you will not know if your on a raid 1 or single drive as drive or system memory makes up for most delays.
As far as raid 1 for home use, I recommend it, as it costs approx. $60 for an extra drive (depending on capacity). Raid 1 saves me from rebuilding systems, beats me charging for a system rebuild.


........................................

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics, 1949

 

[Scott24x7]

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=221330

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Why-RAID-is-usually-a-Terrible-Idea-29/

https://communities.intel.com/thread/88130

This was without even trying.
The bigger issue with RAID 1 is, you need double the drives. I you are a 1:1 drive only, then it may be ok, but it's write speed is still slower than that of RAID 5 or 3. So there is more to consider than just the redundancy. Now, take that up to 8, 10 or even 20 drives, and RAID 1 is really a waste.

Best Regards,
Scott
MIET, MASHRAE, CDCP, CDCS, CDCE, CTDC, CTIA, ATS

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."