Mac Mini Server: Raid 0 vs System+Scratch Disks?

montom

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 25, 2005
63
2
I'm about to get a Mac Mini Server for audio, video, and graphic production, in addition to everyday productivity use.

If in the same situation, which would you prefer?

1) to stripe (Raid 0) the two internal disks, or

2) use one as the install/OS disk and the other as the data/scratch disk?

(...assuming you have a 1TB external backup drive, and find FW800 to be much slower than internal SATA for a data/scratch disk).

Thanks!
 

DannySmurf

macrumors 6502a
Jul 7, 2005
628
0
Go RAID0, unless you have some technical reason not to (want to use Bootcamp, for example).
 

VideoFreek

macrumors 6502
May 12, 2007
455
57
Philly
I've gone with option 2, but then I use my mini as a server and not in the way you intend. RAID 0 will certainly buy you increased speed (search around, someone posted some benchmarks in another thread), but this will come at the expense of reliability. If you do this, a really solid backup strategy is essential. I would clone the system to an external FW 800 drive, so that if an internal disk fails you can boot off the external and limp along until you are able to replace the failed drive.
 

indg

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2007
456
8
I've gone with option 2, but then I use my mini as a server and not in the way you intend. RAID 0 will certainly buy you increased speed (search around, someone posted some benchmarks in another thread), but this will come at the expense of reliability. If you do this, a really solid backup strategy is essential. I would clone the system to an external FW 800 drive, so that if an internal disk fails you can boot off the external and limp along until you are able to replace the failed drive.
raid-0 or not, you should always have a backup regardless. the OP said he has a 1tb external drive, so that could be his cloned backup drive (superduper, ccc, whatever) as the saying goes, always buy hard drives in pairs (your main one and a backup).
 

montom

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 25, 2005
63
2
Thanks for the tips.

I went ahead and did the RAID 0, and the system really flies now.

XBench gave sequential 157.38 MB/sec and random 69.26 MB/sec.
 

kdcarver

macrumors newbie
Aug 11, 2010
4
0
Installation of RAID 0

went ahead and did the RAID 0, and the system really flies now
I purchased a Mini Server. On install, it's JBOD (and appears to assign one of the disks with a single folder "backup"). I haven't loaded any data on the machine yet, so would like to switch to a RAID 0 (and have a 1TB external as a clone).

May I assume that you re-installed the OS, and changed to a RAID 0 with the Install DVD Disk Utility? Could you elaborate?
 

mangrove

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2010
440
0
FL, USA
I have no figures to back this up but I was pretty sure a 3.5" 7200 rpm FW800 drive is faster than a 2.5" 5400rpm sata drive...
I'd just call up OWC TEch Support and ask them. Say you were thinking about getting a Voyager Q and wanted to know since it has 2 FW800 ports and accepts either 3.5 or 2.5 drives.
 

evilcat

macrumors member
Apr 18, 2005
83
0
I have no figures to back this up but I was pretty sure a 3.5" 7200 rpm FW800 drive is faster than a 2.5" 5400rpm sata drive...
Well Fw800 maxes out at 82Mb/second in extended testing. An internal 7200rpm can get up to 150Mb/s but most lower capacities can just about hit 130Mb/s. OWC's fastest 5200rpm maxes out at about 98Mb/s on Esata.

Thing is, these figures are for copying large files, where the disk gets time to spin up to top speed. With smaller files, the cache will make a difference, as will the disk latency. Although an SSD on FW800 could never get above 80Mb/s, it will still be faster than any HDD because they have to spin up and seek over the platters, and an SSD doesn't. This means a 7200rpm external FW800 drive will be faster than a 5200rpm on FW800 unless you're copying, say, a 600Mb ISO file.

Whether it will feel any different to you is another matter...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.