Setting up Raid 0 (Striping) on the new Mac Mini Server

[Falynn]

I am looking into getting a new Mac Mini server to play at home and would like to configure it to use RAID 0 to try to get a higher yield of discs of 5400. I have a couple of questions. Can anyone give me an estimate of the percentage rate for reads and writes in a RAID 1 and / or use of the two disks without RAID? How do I set the disks when the unit is delivered? Using RAID 0, I have to reformat and reinstall, perhaps using the media mounted on another Mac with an optical drive

[Ceesar]

The disks are configured as 2 divide volumes when they arrive - "Server HD" and "Macintosh HD2" - there is no alternative to configure RAID during installation (which I think is a missed opportunity for Apple). I created a dishonored RAID array with cloning "Macintosh HD2" disc and "Server HD" volume. Then I restarted the dishonored array, but not mounted the original disk, adding that the raid. This works (so far), but the disc later added to the matrix is degraded. I'm in the process of trying to rebuild after the repair permissions (there were a lot of permissions that need repair).

[Kickapoo]

Even I have curious if there are any slow disk access once you are mirroring (Raid 1) configuration? Part of the reason for interest in the configuration of RAID 0 is to try to get some improved performance of disk accesses, and I'd rather not go the way of swapping discs in 7200, both for cost reasons and because it can run hotter

[Odalis]

Well, not really that important, I'll be using the mini server with a cable connected to the disk array fire backend runs as RAID 5. That's where my backups and takes care of the resistance. If I was running RAID 1 and was one of the internal disks still going to finish opening the box so I thought I might as well band and see if I could get some speed up access to my applications and system files. I have curious if this is going to win big.

[Abenaki]

If you want a faster hard drive or buy a faster hard drive or take the hard drives you have and connect them together in RAID 0. If you are simply concerned about data loss, backup either regularly or do RAID1. If you want the best of both worlds, I prefer to recommend Raid 5 instead of a combination of RAID0 and RAID1. RAID 5 has the best combination of speed improvement compared to the redundancy, but it takes at least 3 drives RAID 5, and not all RAID controllers support RAID 5.

[Illinois]

RAID 5 does not have the best combination of redundancy. If two disks fail in RAID 5, you're in luck. However, RAID 1 +0, depending on which disks fail, in theory, can survive up to a drive failure in a configuration N 2N. RAID 5 is for performance with some inherent redundancy. RAID 1 +0 provides performance and redundancy. I am sure my post will help you.

[Iroquois]

The worst bottleneck in a computer today is still the hard drive, disproportionately more horrible in performance of almost all other computer components - so the answer to "Why is the speed of disk access important to you "should be obvious, the question is almost ridiculous. With RAID 0, random access speed remains the same, but sustained read and write speed improved to 2 times (for 2 units for units of Nx N). With RAID 1, as both units are each writing a copy of the same bits of writing there is no improvement, but sustained improvement in reading speed up to 2x (for 2 units for units of Nx N), but not so good as Raid0 due to duplication of overhead (overhead between the reflection and the striping is different, but I'm not sure how).