Backing up Raid 0?

I know that raid 0 can be dangerous. I've never been tempted to do it. However, I did a speed test on my drives via USB 3.0 and got about 130.

I did a speed test on the same drive connected to another drive just like it via 3.0 in Raid 0 and got a read and write of almost 800. That is faster than my external SSD usb 3.0

I have searched the internet all over and no one will tell me how to just backup the raid so I can use it. Do I have to have another raid to back it up? Can I back it up on a single drive as long as what is on the raid does not exceed that single drive?

Can I use something like Chronosync or do I just drag and drop?

Two 4tb drives, so it's an 8TB raid, however I'm only gonna use about 4tb, as they slow down at about the halfway mark.

I've got a 4TB I could back it up to.

I also have the ability to make this rig thunderbolt instead of USB 3.0 but I don't know if I want to buy the thunderbolt drive bay anymore because 800 write speed and 800 read is just insane.

It's getting the same speed my internal SSD gets, almost at least.

Raid 0 is not necessarily dangerous, other than it just makes one big drive, so there is no redundancy. If you back it up regularly, you should be OK. You can just drag and drop files from it to another backup drive of any sort. I'd recommend something like Carbon Copy Cloner or Super Duper that will allow you to set a source, destination and whatever folders or files you want to be automatically (or manually as you desire) backed up.

So, basically I can use Chronosync and just sync the raid to one drive? Now, if the raid were to fail, how would it know where to put the information I backed up back on it? Since it splits between different drives? This is after I repaired the disk of course.

I think you may be over thinking this issue of backing up a raid 0. Chronosync is raid agnostic, it does not see the drive as anything else than a 8 TB drive (total raid capacity). When you restore a backup you are either restoring the whole disk or discreet files or folders therefore you are totally replacing the whole directory or discreet parts of it. It does not replace parts of files therefore it doesn't have to work out which part of a file is on what disc it just starts again and replaces the whole file,folder or disk. I work all the time with raid 0 and Chronosync without a problem. In fact my raid died recently, probably due to a corruption in the directory. I was using WD green discs which unknown to me are notoriously unreliable, so from now on I will use WD reds. The lesson learnt is that if you use raid 0 pay extra for more reliable discs or go for a smaller raid with more reliable disks. I hope this helps

Ian

There's nothing wrong with RAID 0. I am running RAID 5 and I do a backup after every major operation (e.g.: importing a bunch of footage or finishing a big project) and at least 2-3 times a week. Of course I do have a bit of a safety net with RAID 5. If I were running RAID 0 I would probably back up more often. Maybe 1-2 times a day just to be safe.

That being said, I have been using hard drives for editing for over 20 years and can count on one hand the number of drive failures I have had. I can count on no hands the amount of critical data I have lost. If I am "just lucky" then I wish I could transfer some of that luck over to my lottery tickets. :lol:

One of the things I would recommend is not using drives for too long and definitely not after their warranty period.

RAID 0 RAID and single drives are basically time bombs. If you back up regularly then you minimize the risk, but it really comes down to what you are willing to loose. If you are a hobbyist or working on low budget projects then it's probably worth the risk. If you are working on projects where big money and big deadlines are on the line then it just doesn't make sense. It only takes one catastrophic lose to make you regret the gamble.

Also, RAID 5 is great until 2 drives go down. Then it's all toast. Seems unlikely but it happened to us a few years back. I guess that means that even with RAID protection, be sure to backup critical files regularly.

Sorry to be the voice of doom and gloom. :evil:

---> Jarrod

Data is data, a volume is a volume, backup, restore, doesn't matter what the main and backup drive types/configs are.

Correction, RAID 5 can only lose one drive before losing all data. RAID 6 is simply a RAID 5 that can lose 2 drives, but then you forfeit 2 drives of space in RAID 6, instead of just one.

"Correction, RAID 5 can only lose one drive before losing all data."

I'm not sure if you are just re-phrasing what I said here. With a RAID 5 setup, one drive lost is okay. When you loose two then you loose the integrity of the RAID array. That's what I meant by "RAID 5 is great until 2 drives go down. Then it's all toast".

Also, RAID 5 & 6 don't have completely redundant drives. The backup information is spread across multiple drives. You don't loose 1 or 2 drives of space for those types of RAID (respectively). If you want the gory details then check out - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

---> Jarrod

Let's say you build a RAID with 4 x 4TB drives. Total of 16 YB raw space. RAID 5 will eat up the equivalent of 1 drive's worth of space. Thus you end up with 12 TB of available storage space.

RAID 6 on that same enclosure will leave you with 8 TB of available storage space.

Yes, we're saying the same thing, when you loose the second drive in a RAD 5, you lose all of your data, period. RAID 6 won't lose everything until that 3rd drive fails.

Oops, Mea Culpa. You're exactly right about the amount of parity info for RAID 5. I've been using RAID 6 for a while now and it is more efficient. It only uses 20% of the total drive space for parity info instead of 25% (like RAID 5).

---> Jarrod

Depends on the size of your drives, and the number of drives you're using. Can't be boiled down to a set percentage. Mid I have 16x2 TB drives, I still only give up 4 TB parity space, and have 28 TB left. RAIDS 6 uses more party space than 5.