Decent and cheap mobo for RAID4

[Countryside]

Hey good members! the headline hides the question so waiting for recommendations thx.

 

[JalleR]

Hmm is there a reason for not using Raid5 instead? a lot of mobo can handle that

I have a Z97P-D3 running Raid 5

 

[SouthOfHere]

RAID 4 is obsolete and I doubt there's more than a handful of people still using it, if any. RAID 5 was introduced as a successor to RAID 4 and is generally considered to provider better performance and suffer less disk failures due to the distributed parity. Use RAID 5, most boards these days support it.

 

[Countryside]

Agreed but what about a mobo got something specific in mind? longtime ago used old p67 board for 1year but then southbridge died.

 

[Disparia]

Hundreds of boards fit the RAID criteria. We need to cut this down a bit

Looking for a new system? Or do you just want a replacement P67 board to get that system up and running again? What's the story with the system in your specs? It has AMD SB950 and can RAID.

 

[Countryside]

Hundreds of boards fit the RAID criteria. We need to cut this down a bit

Looking for a new system? Or do you just want a replacement P67 board to get that system up and running again? What's the story with the system in your specs? It has AMD SB950 and can RAID.

AMD is main rig not using raid there and yeah thinking about a new system for raid, mobo pirce should be at 70-90euro

 

[Bill_Bright]

Why do you want RAID? That is, what sort of data? And with what sort of drives? A decent SSD will blow the socks off the fastest RAID running with the fastest HDs.

Plus, while a budget board will be reliable and can support RAID, but if looking for maximum performance, budget boards don't really deliver. So again, a decent SSD might fit the bill better.

 

[Countryside]

Why do you want RAID? That is, what sort of data? And with what sort of drives? A decent SSD will blow the socks off the fastest RAID running with the fastest HDs.

Plus, while a budget board will be reliable and can support RAID, but if looking for maximum performance, budget boards don't really deliver. So again, a decent SSD might fit the bill better.

Really short version is for data storage and access to important files , so very fast speed is not that important and high capability ssd are really expensive.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Really short version is for data storage and access to important files , so very fast speed is not that important and high capability ssd are really expensive.

I don't see a requirement for RAID in that. RAID is generally for redundancy or performance or both - and fault tolerance is typically only a requirement for servers that absolutely must have no down time. Setting up a RAID requires multiple drives in a configuration that creates a mirrored array, striped array or combination of both. A mirrored array basically costs double. A striped array is not robust because a loss of one drive means a loss of all data. A hybrid array is robust, but with a greater expense of needing extra drives.

So again, based on your stated requirements (which includes concerns for costs), I don't see where you need a RAID array. It looks to me like you could be served well with a 250- 256GB SSD and if you need mass storage, then a large TB drive as a secondary drive.

 

[Countryside]

I don't see a requirement for RAID in that. RAID is generally for redundancy or performance or both - and fault tolerance is typically only a requirement for servers that absolutely must have no down time. Setting up a RAID requires multiple drives in a configuration that creates a mirrored array, striped array or combination of both. A mirrored array basically costs double. A striped array is not robust because a loss of one drive means a loss of all data. A hybrid array is robust, but with a greater expense of needing extra drives.

So again, based on your stated requirements (which includes concerns for costs), I don't see where you need a RAID array. It looks to me like you could be served well with a 250- 256GB SSD and if you need mass storage, then a large TB drive as a secondary drive.

Understood i will take that into consideration.

 

[Bill_Bright]

How much storage space do you need? While SSDs do still cost a premium compared to spinners, their prices are really coming down. I remember when 1TB hard drives cost $500. Now you can get 1TB SSDs, for just $240.

And the thing is, once you build a system around SSDs, it's like going from dial-up to cable broadband.

 

[Countryside]

How much storage space do you need? While SSDs do still cost a premium compared to spinners, their prices are really coming down. I remember when 1TB hard drives cost $500. Now you can get 1TB SSDs, for just $240.

And the thing is, once you build a system around SSDs, it's like going from dial-up to cable broadband.

I require at least 4TB did some diggin and i can get 2x2TB thosiba for 140euros if im lucky i can get a third one

 

[hat]

I would still recommend RAID. Are the files important to you? Can you get them again, should you lose them? Would it be a massive pain in the ass? Storage on a single drive is fine, until the drive dies. I would recommend using RAID 5, which is most likely going to be available on any motherboard you pick out anyway. With raid 5, if you need 4TB of storage, you can get 3 2TB discs. This will result in 4TB storage capacity and you'll be able to suffer one drive failure before you lose any data.

That said, I'm sure someone will come in and say "RAID is not a backup!", or point out other potential scenarios resulting in data loss, such as something happening to the controller (motherboard), power supply blowing up the computer etc... and while I recognize those are real possibilities, I find them less likely than the death of a hard disc. There are other options, however, beyond a single RAID array to better protect your data from even those scenarios, if you're willing to go that far/the data is that important enough to you. If you're worried about the controller dying, or possibly moving the array to another machine at some point in the future, you can get a RAID expansion card to handle the array instead of your motherboard. That will also help in case the controller card dies, in which case, you can replace it with another one (though I recognize you can also simply buy the same motherboard again, but that may be more difficult than finding the same controller card again). If you're worried about damage on a larger scale, such as an exploding power supply, you can store a separate copy of the array elsewhere, backing up the RAID array.

 

[yogurt_21]

I require at least 4TB did some diggin and i can get 2x2TB thosiba for 140euros if im lucky i can get a third one

3 in raid 5 will do ya then. though you did say "at least" so maybe a 4th drive or spring for 3 4tb in raid 5.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Can you get them again, should you lose them? Would it be a massive pain in the ass? Storage on a single drive is fine, until the drive dies.

That's what backups are for.

That said, I'm sure someone will come in and say "RAID is not a backup!"

That's right! Even with the most robust RAID array, you still need to backup your data. And that takes more drives, or a whole lot of optical disks, or a mirrored computer off site somewhere. To rely only on the redundant drives in a RAID array as your only backup is downright foolish! Sh!t happens!

A RAID does not protect your data from lightning or other severe power anomalies (even with a good UPS with AVR - with is highly recommended anyway), fire, flood, malware, or theft.

To be sure, I used to build all my personal PCs with RAIDs. I used mirrored arrays and always bought 3 identical disks, 2 for the array and a ready spare which I keep in my safe deposit box at my bank. And every month or so, I would swap them out. But I never, not once, really needed the extra disk for data recovery. And drives today are more reliable than they were back then.

Setting up and having a RAID is cool, but the reality is, unless you really truly need 24/7/365 access to your data, you are wasting your money setting up a RAID.

 

[Athlon2K15]

If you are going to use RAID at least get a card and use hardware RAID.

 

[hat]

That's what backups are for.

That's right! Even with the most robust RAID array, you still need to backup your data. And that takes more drives, or a whole lot of optical disks, or a mirrored computer off site somewhere. To rely only on the redundant drives in a RAID array as your only backup is downright foolish! Sh!t happens!

A RAID does not protect your data from lightning or other severe power anomalies (even with a good UPS with AVR - with is highly recommended anyway), fire, flood, malware, or theft.

To be sure, I used to build all my personal PCs with RAIDs. I used mirrored arrays and always bought 3 identical disks, 2 for the array and a ready spare which I keep in my safe deposit box at my bank. And every month or so, I would swap them out. But I never, not once, really needed the extra disk for data recovery. And drives today are more reliable than they were back then.

Setting up and having a RAID is cool, but the reality is, unless you really truly need 24/7/365 access to your data, you are wasting your money setting up a RAID.

Until hard drive failure, which I believe is more likely than anything else that could go wrong, does set in. Now you're losing your data which could have been prevented by a simple RAID setup. I have a 2TB HDD I bought back when they ran for $100 or so, before the prices spiked up (they've since come down). The drive failed. The PSU didn't blow up, there wasn't a fire, Zeus never threw thunderbolts at my PC, but the drive failed. Before that I had a 500GB HDD, which failed. I've lost data twice due to HDD failure, which could have been prevented by a RAID array... not to mention faster read performance along the way.

To reiterate, I believe it's worthwhile pointing out other things that can go wrong besides drive failure so that people can be aware of them and take the proper precautions if they see fit, but my point of view is that drive failure is, by and large, the most common problem.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree with Athlon that if serious about a RAID, and because you are going with a near entry-level motherboard, a dedicated card is better for many reasons.

And I agree with hat too. A mirrored RAID setup can indeed save you from losing data in the event of a hard drive failure. And ALL drives WILL fail - eventually. And the more drives you have, the greater the chance you will encounter one that fails pre-maturely. SSDs, on the other hand, with no moving parts, can be expected to last longer than your computer. Of course, until Man can create perfection 100% of the time, even an SSD can fail, but the with no moving parts the risks are much lower. I mean you can't find a hard drive with a 10 year warranty!

But a decent backup plan can save you from losing data too - at least all data up to the most recent backup. And even with a RAID setup, you still need a decent backup plan. RAIDs only protect you from drive failure. If your operating system becomes corrupt, for yet another example of something else that could go wrong, RAID will not save you there either. And yes, I have seen drives fail over the years, but I've seen more data loss from drive and file corruption - which often is spread across the RAID array.

If going with Windows 10 - which I suggest you do - you can easily set up W10's File History feature to keep current copies of all your files and folders on separate drives, even on networked drives (or as in my case, on my backup computer in different part of the house). The default is every hour but you can change that to every 10 minutes if you want. And recovering this data is a simple as navigating to the File History folder location with Windows File Explorer (used to be called Windows Explorer) and drag and drop the backup back on your new drive. Piece of cake. So losing data really is not an issue - except for not having immediate, uninterrupted access to it.

Again, if you need immediate, uninterrupted, full time 24/7 access, hat is right. There's nothing better than a mirrored RAID (except maybe mirrored computers). But multiple drive RAIDs are more expensive to set up and cost your more to run too.

I guess my real problem boils down to this - and admittedly, it is personal. Hard drives are ancient, archaic technology, electro-mechanical devices that consume lots of power, take up lots of space, generate lots of heat, make noise, create vibrations, suffer from fragmentation performance issues, and they wear out. Plus, they are agonizingly slow (or will seem that way once used to SSDs). Their only advantage (for the time being) is they cost less per GB. But when you spread that cost over the life of the computer (factoring in power and cooling costs), I don't see the cost as an issue either.

Okay - the fact is, SSDs have spoiled me rotten! And I am glad for it. I will never go back to those big old clunky mechanical things. All my builds now use SSDs. And note you can use SSDs in RAIDs too!

 

[Countryside]

Thx dear members for these constructive posts

Thing is that i always keep backups its a must. but yeah raid5 will be good incase drive failure, im good with four 2tb hdds because the data is sensitive and access to it must be 12hrs in a day, OS will be Win10 & now for the mobos im thinking Asus B150M-PLUS D3 or Gigabyte GA-B150M-HD3DDR3.

PS: Im just little bit rusty with raid used it a long time ago

 

[Bill_Bright]

Well, I prefer Gigabyte but ASUS is always a close second.

In this case, I for sure would pick the Gigabyte but a model that supports DDR4 RAM. Like this one.

 

[Countryside]

Well, I prefer Gigabyte but ASUS is always a close second.

In this case, I for sure would pick the Gigabyte but a model that supports DDR4 RAM. Like this one.

ddr4 fosure damn thous sleepy eyes and yeah that mobo is decent why not.