RAID 1 only utilises the storage of one drive

[ohbus]

Why does a RAID 1 only shows the storage of only one drive?

 

Theoretically, It keeps the whole data in all of the drives, so it just keeps all the same data in all of these 12 drives just for redundancy?
It's freaking boring to see such implementation of RAID 1 configuration. Won't we be just using RAID 5 to have only one drive for parity or maybe RAID 6 and get only two drives for parity which will offer us more reliability, efficiency and more usable storage.

 

So, morally anyone with more than two drive and goes for a RAID 1 configuration would be a total loss. It would be wiser to opt for a RAID 5 configuration which will obviously offer us better usability and reliability.

 

PS: Thanks to @seagate_surfer for helping me out and contributing the visuals for this post to help understand better.

[dcgreen2k]

Raid 1 only mirrors the drives, so the data of drive 1 = the data of drive 2. 

As for Raid 1 being boring... It isn't designed to be fun, it's designed to be redundant in case a drive fails.

[KenjiUmino]

that picture just makes my head explode. 

 

who in his right mind would set up a dozen 10tb disks as a raid 1 ? 

 

thats ridiculous, almost paranoid

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

30 minutes ago, ohbus said:

So, morally

I don't think that this is a moral issue...

[Gikero]

7 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I don't think that this is a moral issue...

I was guessing OP meant "normally".

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Gikero said:

I was guessing OP meant "normally".

I mean, this is a thread where the OP basically posted simply to declare that using more than two drives in RAID1 is 'Freaking Boring' so maybe he thinks this s a deep moral issue that leaves us questioning our very value system as human beings?

[vanished]

14 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

that picture just makes my head explode. 

 

who in his right mind would set up a dozen 10tb disks as a raid 1 ? 

 

thats ridiculous, almost paranoid

 

 

Yeah just a tad paranoid

[Gikero]

49 minutes ago, ohbus said:

Why does a RAID 1 only shows the storage of only one drive?

@seagate_surfer

FYI, RAID 1 does give you redundancy, but not parity. That is key if your end goal is minimizing the chance of data loss.

[KenjiUmino]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah just a tad paranoid

in all seriousness - 12 disks in RAID 1 would not be the smartest way to protect data.

 

sure, you can lose 11 drives at once and still keep truckin like nothing happened but if i had data that is THIS critical - i better have some additional off-site backups

[vanished]

Just now, KenjiUmino said:

in all seriousness - 12 disks in RAID 1 would not be the smartest way to protect data.

 

sure, you can lose 11 drives at once and still keep truckin like nothing happened but if i had data that is THIS critical - i better have some additional off-site backups

Yeah absolutely.  If I was given 12 drives and asked to keep 1 drive worth of data safe, I'd probably run 3 in RAID 1, make 3 separate local backups, and then make 6 additional separate backups, sending pairs of them to 3 different locations around the city and world

[seagate_surfer]

1 hour ago, ohbus said:

Why does a RAID 1 only shows the storage of only one drive?

 

Theoretically, It keeps the whole data in all of the drives, so it just keeps all the same data in all of these 12 drives just for redundancy?
It's freaking boring to see such implementation of RAID 1 configuration. Won't we be just using RAID 5 to have only one drive for parity or maybe RAID 6 and get only two drives for parity which will offer us more reliability, efficiency and more usable storage.

 

So, morally anyone with more than two drive and goes for a RAID 1 configuration would be a total loss. It would be wiser to opt for a RAID 5 configuration which will obviously offer us better usability and reliability.

 

PS: Thanks to @seagate_surfer for helping me out and contributing the visuals for this post to help understand better.

No problem. If it were me setting up a storage solution, this is likely how I'd go based on how many disks I had:

2 disks - RAID 1
3 disks - RAID 5
4+ disks - RAID 6 or 10 depending on what the system was being used for. A lot of people default automatically to RAID 10 here because it has striping performance benefit, but there's one subtle difference:

While RAID 6 isn't quite as fast as RAID 10, it is more redundant. Both RAID 6 and 10 can technically withstand 2 disk failures, but for RAID 10 to withstand 2 drive failures, it has to be the "right" two drives failing. RAID 6 can withstand ANY 2 drives going down at once. So it just depends on whether, for a specific application, you value performace or redundancy more.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, seagate_surfer said:

4+ disks - RAID 6 or 10 depending on what the system was being used for. A lot of people default automatically to RAID 10 here because it has striping performance benefit, but there's one subtle difference:

While RAID 6 isn't quite as fast as RAID 10, it is more redundant. Both RAID 6 and 10 can technically withstand 2 disk failures, but for RAID 10 to withstand 2 drive failures, it has to be the "right" two drives failing. RAID 6 can withstand ANY 2 drives going down at once. So it just depends on whether, for a specific application, you value performace or redundancy more.

thank you, I think this is far too often overlooked