16 Jul
2020
16 Jul
'20
10:58 a.m.
Are you sure that was RAID 0 (zero), /striping/?
I've never heard of
/software/ RAID 0 (striping) for the /boot/ drive in Windows. I would
expect that to be RAID 1 or something other than the drive with
NTLDR.EXE on it. I also suspect that the drive with %SystemRoot% on it
would need to more conducive to loading driver and software RAID
support
files very early in the boot process.
Absolutely correct. Proof reading good ;)! It was RAID 1.
That's one of the reasons that ZFS supports three
drives worth of
redundancy in addition to the data space. RAID Z1 / Z2 / Z3.
Interesting. Is there an official RAID level for three drive parity? The Areca controllers
do combined levels (e.g. 60 for two RAID 6 arrays stripped) but I don't think they do
mirroring of parity RAID levels.
I think that the CPU overhead / computation time is
now largely
insignificant. To me, one of the biggest issues is the simple massing
amount of data that needs to be read from and written to multiple
drives. At full interface speed, some drives can take a LONG time to
transfer all the data. What's worse is the sustained I/O speed to
platters of spinning rust being significantly slower than the interface
speed.
True. That is one of the points the article makes too. Basically, you can't get the
data fast enough but that would be inherent in both SW and HW implementations. The only
way to overcome that is to use SSDs I would think.
Only have a few hundred GB on that multi TB RAID
array
consisteng of multipel 1 TB drives? Fine. Only need to check the few
hundred GB. It's actually quite fast.
That is nice. I may have to look at it next time I do a RAID implementation.
-Ali