Dual RAID Array?

[StudioRat81]

Hey guys. So, I need some advice from people who are familiar with RAID arrays within the context of music production and recording. I'm in the process of updating my main studio machine to a Mac Pro, and while I'm at it, I plan to rework my data storage scheme. I have two 500 GB SSDs that I want to port over from my current system, and I was considering buying two more of those and a four bay enclosure like this (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VJ4IWVU/...=IT8Q3WGY04ED8) so that I can create two separate RAID arrays. I'd like to have one mirrored array for my main recording drive so that it is always backed up, and then create a RAID 0/striped array with the other two drives for my sample libraries. I'll be using another USB 3 drive to back up that whole configuration and my system drive. The thing is, I've never worked with RAID before, and really only know the barest of basics about it, so I was hoping someone could tell me if that kind of configuration is even possible, or recommended for audio production. I'll be running Pro Tools 12 on this system. Thanks for any suggestions you can give.

[Craig F]

You are so off base:
A RAID 0 is a dangerous thing, if one drive fails the all the information is lost from all the drives and given SSDs random read times totally unnecessary
A RAID 1 is not a back up it is a fault tolerance to drive failure
A Backup is something you can recall in-case of a deletion. On a RAID 1 you defeat something it is deleted from both drive at the same time, hence no backup.

Now a RAID 1 for your samples might be worth something but I wouldn't do it that way, I would have 1 SSD for samples and a offline backup of the drive in-case something happened

For your working drive I would run one SSD are the primary and the second as the online backup for quick backups during the day then go to a offline (or near-line, RAID 5 or 6 NAS) backup at the end of the day

[StudioRat81]

Thanks for the response.

Question: how is RAID 0 "a dangerous thing"? It really should be no more dangerous than using a single dedicated drive, correct? Both are susceptible to a single point of failure, and thus needs to be consistently backed up, but is there any other particular reason RAID 0 poses a greater risk?

And yes, I understand that RAID 1 is not a "replacement" for backing up, which is why I mentioned that I would be backing up the whole system to a separate drive. I was using the word "backup" in the context that I would have a constantly running duplicate of my data in case of a hard drive failure, which is really the only way I have ever actually lost data in the past, before I was smart enough to run regular backups. It would seem to me that a RAID 1 setup would be superior to just periodically backing up throughout the day, as you would always be protected against drive failure in real time. That, used in conjunction with a periodic or daily local backup, plus a cloud backup (which I will also be running), seems as though it should provide more than adequate protection against data loss.

I do agree though on RAID 0 for my sample library being unnecessary. I am going to probably go with a dual SSD enclosure in a RAID 1 array for my recording drive, and just use a spare 2 TB USB 3 drive I have for my samples.

Thanks again for the input.
I

[imwaltraud]

Originally Posted by StudioRat81

Thanks for the response.

Question: how is RAID 0 "a dangerous thing"? It really should be no more dangerous than using a single dedicated drive, correct? Both are susceptible to a single point of failure, and thus needs to be consistently backed up, but is there any other particular reason RAID 0 poses a greater risk?

I

By increasing the drive count you also increase the probability of failure. So a RAID0 with two drives is more likely to fail than a single drive.

[Craig F]

A single drive may be recoverable by a Data Recovery service
A RAID 0 is never recoverable, no one file is on a single drive
The only place I would think about 0 these days would be massive data capturing like live capturing RAW 4K+ video

[StudioRat81]

Those are both good points I hadn't thought of. But in either case, wouldn't a comprehensive backup strategy nullify the additional risk?

[imwaltraud]

Originally Posted by StudioRat81

Those are both good points I hadn't thought of. But in either case, wouldn't a comprehensive backup strategy nullify the additional risk?

Restoring from any kind of backup (tape, disk, cloud services etc.) takes time. If it's ok for you that your data is not available for say a day then this is perfectly fine. If your business depends on the availibilty of your data then you probably want to make sure that your data is always available or as close as you can get to 'always'.

[StudioRat81]

Originally Posted by imwaltraud

Restoring from any kind of backup (tape, disk, cloud services etc.) takes time. If it's ok for you that your data is not available for say a day then this is perfectly fine. If your business depends on the availibilty of your data then you probably want to make sure that your data is always available or as close as you can get to 'always'.

But wouldn't that still be the case whether it's a single hard drive that fails or a RAID 0 array? I mean, I get that the RAID 0 array would be more likely to fail in theory, but is the probability of that happening really significant enough to completely write off RAID 0 as an option? A quick Google search turns up a 1% probability that a hard drive will fail in any given year, so the probability of a two drive RAID 0 array failing should be 2%, correct? Meaning there's still a 98% chance that your workflow will not be interrupted due to a drive failure. I guess I'm just not understanding all the red flags about RAID 0 vs working off of a single drive as long as you're taking the necessary precautions.

[TimNielsen]

If you are talking about RAID 0 for your sample libraries, using two SSDs, I wouldn't worry it the least. Don't listen to the people trying to scare you off, they have no idea what they're talking about. It's not any more dangerous than any other scheme, assuming you're properly backed up! Plus in general SSDs are so stable these days, two of them in a striped array wouldn't worry me in the least.

Plus, you'll double the speed of the dual-SSD RAID 0, and for a sample library, that can be a wonderful thing indeed. Raid 1 for your other two drives makes sense, and no matter what they say, of COURSE the second redundant drive is a 'back-up' that's the entire point of it! It's a constantly writing mirror clone. I would ALSO back it up to an external drive for sure, and even keep it offsite for extra safety.

But I've been running various 2 and 4 drive RAID arrays for years now. Never had a failure of any kind. But I'm also prepared that it could happen, and have multiple backups of anything important.

[Quickdraw]

You will be fine with Raid 0 for your sample drives, just back it up. People that don't deal with this stuff get scared off by the fact that it is not redundant (no mirroring) but if you have a proper backup you should have no troubles, remember that even if you are mirroring you will still need to rebuild the second drive in the event of a failure.
Just keep in mind that if a drive fails in a Raid 0 array you have to reformat all drives and restore the backup, it's no different than if a single drive configuration fails.