I partitioned the QVO into two partitions 1tb for the Raid 0 array with the Evo, and 1tb for what I call "the update drive". I've been running a similar setup on a Mid 2012 13" for two years. But if you're savy enough to set this up, and invest in the drives, you know the deal. But it works! And to those who say it increases your risk of a data loss. Again that just means you'll have to use the cloning software again, update accordingly, then clone back to the raid. But you also need to know, doing this will also prevent you from updating the OS. I use SuperDuper, but CCC works well too. The work around is to clone your current drive onto a pre-formatted raid array. Catalina will not allow you to install via the usual installer. Just be sure you have a solid cloning software to deploy it. You will absolutely see a performance benefit. Unless you have "live" backups, you will still lose any data that was created since your most recent backup. Even if you do have a backup, there is still the downtime related to the time it takes to do a restore. I agree, that everyone should have a backup, but the reality is, not everyone does. This will be much better on a large SSD as opposed to a RAID 0 array. Really the biggest advantage offered by SSDs, are the random read, and simultaneous (IOPS) operations that can be done. I still stand by my comment about just going to an SSD, vices doing any sort of RAID. Then again, I was taught that RAID stood for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks" as the chief point was to increase storage size, as it was often cheaper to have multiple smaller drives, vices one larger one, but i digress. Heck, I remember when RAID 0 wasn't even considered a real RAID level, and was scoffed at. I've lost several RAID arrays over the years, and the software-based ones have been more finicky than the hardware based ones. Plus, you can't really say that because you have not had any problems, that nobody has or will. That way you get the performance upgrade due to striping (like RAID 0), and the redundancy of parity. That is why I typically recommend you use a RAID 4 or 5. These are all normal risks with a spinning disk, its just the risk has a higher chance of happening with 2 or more. This could be anything from a bad sector on a disk, a sudden bump or drop causing the heads to crash (granted this is rare these days), a file getting corrupted, in a software RAID solution, bugs in the driver, all sorts of things *could* happen, and your risk surface is times 2 with two independent disks. RAID 0 doubles your chance of failure, because if anything happens to either drive, you lose all data. While I have had HDDs fail in the past, I have never had a SSD in RAID0 fail yet. I have been using SW RAID0 as boot drives for a long time, including SSDs. If it is a bootable back up, then there would be little downtime. If you have everything backed up, like one should especially when using RAID0, then even if there is a failure of one of the drives, it shouldn't be too inconvenient. It would be safer for people to wear a helmet on their daily commute in their cars, but it doesn't make it unsafe to not wear a helmet.Ī computer related analogy, it would be much safer for one to by an iMac than a MBP due to the iMac being stationary and less prone to drops, tripping over cords, or other type of damage that Laptops are subject to, but that doesn't make it unsafe to have a MBP. Of course having a single drive would be safer than having two or more drives in a striped RAID, but that doesn't make them unsafe. While true, it does double your risk of drive failure, SSDs in RAID0 tend to be be pretty reliable in my experience. I never understood this argument against using RAID0.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |