Kona RAID level… polling the forum?

[Jeremy Garchow]

Well, I personally use raid 4. If you’re array supports raid 5, I’d say do that. Raid6 takes out two drives therefore cutting your capacity way down.

Raid 0 is a gamble. Swim at your own risk. You lose one drive, you lose the entire array.

What array do you have? What codec do you capture to?

[Gary Adcock]

[Jeremy Garchow] ” If you’re array supports raid 5, I’d say do that”

I agree, however if you are in a real fault tolerant place nothing beats raid 6

most of my arrays( 6 of 8) are at RAID 6 the other 2 only support raid 5 so they use that

gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Inside look at the IoHD

[Bob Zelin]

If you use the ATTO R380 card (Sonnet product line), you will use RAID 4, which is like RAID 5, but does block level RAID. This is the most popular. RAID 6 lets 2 drives fail, and you can keep going, but you loose at least 2 of your drives for backup (and more for the redundancy of the compressed data), and the thruput of the drive array (how fast the drive is) goes down. Modern 8 bay drive arrays from Dulce, Maxx, Cal Digit, G-Tech, Sonnet, etc. are all super fast, and all offer RAID protection. Choose one of these good companies (or even the Apple/Promise VTrak at it’s insanely high price), and you will be very happy with the performance.

The people who suffer continue to use single Lacie FW800 drives. Everyone using modern 8 bay RAID arrays from any of the good companies are flying along with no issues.

Bob Zelin

[Dan Brockett]

RAID 0 but I do have backups of everything on other storage drives. My RAID is too small to run it RAID 5 at this point. Once I upgrade the drives to larger drives, will be going RAID 5.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Bob Zelin]

RAID 0 is great, but is not so great when a drive fails (as everyone else has said in this thread). Some people NEVER have failures with RAID 0, others have failures on a regular basis. This is why you see people say “so and so SUCKS” – because they lost a drive, when countless others never have an issue.

Bob Zelin

[Dan Brockett]

Yes, I agree, RAID 0 is living dangerously. Fortunately I am not an editor by trade and just use my system for occasional projects for clients. If I were an editor, I wouldn’t chance RAID 0, it’s for cheap dummies like me ;-). It’s an eight drive RAID 0 that I built also so there eight chances for this thing to crash and burn.

At least I hae it all backed up on storage drives.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Ron Craig]

I followed Bob Zelin’s advice when I was setting up my system and went with RAID 5. As he indicated above, everything has gone swimmingly ever since; no problems.

That being said, before there was a RAID 5 I used to work with RAID 0 arrays. Frankly, never had a problem with them either.

But I really like the safety of RAID 5.

Lee

[Tom Brooks]

RAID-5. Spares on the shelf. Works for my level of risk.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Ron Craig] “I used to work with RAID 0 arrays. Frankly, never had a problem with them either.”

And it’s not until you have a problem that you realize what you are paying for.

Jeremy

[Olivier Aubut]

I use a HUGE by Ciprico that only does RAID 0 and 3. I recently had a disk that failed, so I replaced it with a new one and the HUGE rebuilt RAID in an hour. Now to me this is pretty fail safe. What are the advantages of working with RAID 5 over RAID 3 ?
Olivier