raid help

[canadiansteve2]

i have 5 3tb drives and i want to make a raid of them. what is the best raid level to maximize my storage??? how can i make a 20tb array with my drives. thanks

[79wjd]

You can't make storage appear out of nowhere. The best you could do would be JBOD or RAID0 and get 15TB usable storage. 

 

In RAID0 if any one drive fails, they all fail. 

 

There's also RAID 1 where the data is mirrored (so two 5tb drives in RAID 1 would give you 5TB usable) and RAID 5 (parity) where three 5tb drives would give you 10TB usable and allow for a single drive to fail. 

[leadeater]

For 5 3TB disks I would use RAID 5. What are you going to be using to create the RAID array? If it's standard onboard SATA ports on a desktop motherboard then don't use RAID 5 or 6 and use RAID 10, it's much less efficient on usable space but RAID 5 on onboard SATA controllers are trash and unreliable so not even worth considering.

[canadiansteve2]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

You can't make storage appear out of nowhere. The best you could do would be JBOD/RAID0 and get 15TB usable storage. 

 

In RAID0 if any one drive fails, they all fail. 

okay thats true... matter cannot be created nor destroyed... so if i wanted to ad redundancy to my array what raid would i use???

[canadiansteve2]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

For 5 3TB disks I would use RAID 5. What are you going to be using to create the RAID array? If it's standard onboard SATA ports on a desktop motherboard then don't use RAID 5 or 6 and use RAID 10, it's much less efficient on usable space but RAID 5 on onboard SATA controllers are trash and unreliable so not even worth considering.

i have a lot of pictures of my dog. I also torrent movies and want to store them

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, canadiansteve2 said:

okay thats true... matter cannot be created nor destroyed... so if i wanted to ad redundancy to my array what raid would i use???

RAID 1, 5, 6, or 10.

 

RAID 5 with three 5tb drives would give you 10TB usable and allow for a single drive failure (but would also likely fail to rebuild due to running into a URE). 

 

RAID 1 with two 5tb drives gives you 5tb usable and allow for a single drive failure. 

 

RAID 10/6 with four 5tb drives, gives you 10TB usable and allow for two drives to fail (RAID6 would allow any two drives to fail, RAID10 would allow for 1 or 2 discs to fail depending on which discs fail).

[canadiansteve2]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

RAID 1, 5, 6, or 10.

 

RAID 5 would give you 10TB usable and allow for a single drive failure (but would also likely fail to rebuild due to running into a URE). 

 

RAID 1 with two 5tb drives gives you 5tb usable and allow for a single drive failure. 

 

RAID 10/6 with four 5tb drives, gives you 10TB usable and allow for two drives to fail. 

thank you thank you!!! raid 5 sounds like the best... my friend who is good with computers said i should use raid 8 tho, is that better?

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, canadiansteve2 said:

thank you thank you!!! raid 5 sounds like the best... my friend who is good with computers said i should use raid 8 tho, is that better?

RAID 8 isn't a thing. 

 

RAID 5 is good, but you're very likely to run into a URE (Unrecoverab;e byte read error) when you're rebuilding the array -- and if that happens the array will fail to rebuild and all the data will be lost. So if you're concerned with your data, then RAID 5 isn't much safer than no RAID at all when you're talking about 5TB drives. 

[leadeater]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

RAID 8 isn't a thing. 

 

RAID 5 is good, but you're very likely to run into a URE (Unrecoverab;e byte read error) when you're rebuilding the array -- and if that happens the array will fail to rebuild and all the data will be lost. So if you're concerned with your data, then RAID 5 isn't much safer then no RAID at all. 

Don't even bother, clearly here to waste everyone's time. Check his content on his profile.

[canadiansteve2]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

RAID 8 isn't a thing. 

 

RAID 5 is good, but you're very likely to run into a URE (Unrecoverab;e byte read error) when you're rebuilding the array -- and if that happens the array will fail to rebuild and all the data will be lost. So if you're concerned with your data, then RAID 5 isn't much safer than no RAID at all when you're talking about 5TB drives. 

okay i will use raid 5. im concerned about my data but i want most storage. thanks

[canadiansteve2]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Don't even bother, clearly here to waste everyone's time. Check his content on his profile.

what content???

[mikat]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

RAID 1, 5, 6, or 10.

 

RAID 5 with three 5tb drives would give you 10TB usable and allow for a single drive failure (but would also likely fail to rebuild due to running into a URE). 

 

RAID 1 with two 5tb drives gives you 5tb usable and allow for a single drive failure. 

 

RAID 10/6 with four 5tb drives, gives you 10TB usable and allow for two drives to fail (RAID6 would allow any two drives to fail, RAID10 would allow for 1 or 2 discs to fail depending on which discs fail).

step one: read

step two: realise that 5 3TB drives means 5x a drive of 3 TB not 3x a drive of 5TB

 

sorry i had to

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, mikat said:

step one: read

step two: realise that 5 3TB drives means 5x a drive of 3 TB not 3x a drive of 5TB

 

sorry i had to

*derp*

 

Fixed. 

 

• JBOD -- 5x3tb drives, 15tb usable (5 independent volumes)
• RAID 0 -- 5x 3tb drives, 15TB usable (a single large volume), no redudancy -- if any drive fails, they all fail. 
• RAID 10 -- 4x 3tb drives, 6tb usable, 1 or 2 drives can fail depending on which drives (one full mirror needs to remain intact). 
• RAID 5 -- 5x 3tb drives, 12tb usable, 1 drive can fail (will likely result in an array failing to rebuild...not much safer than RAID 0).
• RAID 6 -- 5x 3tb drives, 9tb usable, any 2 drives can fail. 

[canadiansteve2]

i just looked it up on wikipedia. so I think ill do jbod then. that means theres no amalagamation then right?

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, canadiansteve2 said:

i just looked it up on wikipedia. so I think ill do jbod then. that means theres no amalagamation then right?

yeah. You'd have five completely independent drives. 

[canadiansteve2]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

yeah. You'd have five completely independent drives. 

okay that would work... would i see one big one in my windows explorer

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, canadiansteve2 said:

okay that would work... would i see one big one in my windows explorer

No, you'd see five completely separate drives. 

[colonel_mortis]

Wasting members' time is not permitted, and is in violation of the