Tell us about the day you lost everything...

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by BurningFeetMan, Dec 23, 2009.

  1. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,129
    Location:
    Veg City
    It happens. Stuff breaks and data is lost.

    Tell us about the day that you lost everything. Was your data backed up? Were wedding photo's lost? Did you get the sack? Did you find yourself re-downloading all of your photo's off of facebook? Did you mix the red and black wires up? Was there smoke?

    Hopefully there's a few stories out there that we can all enjoy at the expense of permanently lost data. :)
     
  2. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Well, this isn't about losing data, but still extremely annoying!

    Was moving drives around in my PC today and accidentally forgot to plug in one of the drives. Turned on my computer to be greeted by Intel Matrix RAID telling me my RAID0 had "Failed" and my RAID5 was "Degraded". "No problem," I thought, I'll just turn it off and plug in said missing cable. Turn it back on, RAID0 was fine, but it decided to initiate a rebuild of my RAID5 which is going to take hours :(.

    Another story I have (a genuine almost lost some data story) is recently my 160GB Hitachi IDE laptop drive in an enclosure recently decided that it wouldn't be detected in Windows. Almost all of the data had been backed up anyway, but there was a iittle data, that I decided I'd attempt to get back anyway, so I got an adapter for laptop IDE -> desktop IDE and managed to get my data off, before having fun with the drive, by attaching a HDD magnet to the bottom of it. Heard a nice screeching sound and the BIOS never picked up the drive again :). Stupid Hitachi
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  3. Predator

    Predator Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    1,797
    Location:
    Newcastle
    I had two 30GB deathstars in raid 0 quite some time ago. Nothing backed up. I lost 100s of hours of Diablo 2 characters.
     
  4. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Also, can't thank Acronis Disk Director's recover partitions feature enough. Especially when Windows, instead of telling me I can't have more than 4 primary partitions (I already knew this, but wasn't concentrating on what I was doing) decided to put the partition in the extended space and delete one of the partitions listed there without saying anything in warning. All I had to do was delete it and scan the area with Acronis and I got the partition back. So handy. Also helped me recover when I accidentally deleted my RAID0 array before having copied everything off of it ("oops, I missed that folder :("). Simply recreated array, searched and it found the partition :D

    Yep, nowsdays, RAID0 for OS + RAID5 for data = WIN :D
     
  5. noobmastery

    noobmastery Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Sydney, 2088
    I had one of those old WD1200JD sata drives, accidentally connected both the sata power and the molex, it didn't live long. Thankfully the warranty guys couldn't tell :)
     
  6. titan87

    titan87 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Canberra
    I had a 4x320gb drive RAID-0 array disappear. (The silicon image raid card it was attached to died and took the partition data with it) a day later i had most of the data recovered to a couple of spare 500gb drives only to find a lot of the data was corrupt once i had put it back on the 320gb drives. Turned out i also had a faulty sata cable :( 2 days after it fell over i had most if it back with a new card and cable. I learnt that moving 1.3TB @ ~90mb/s multiple times takes ages and sector by sector data recovery on ~1.5tb takes about 8 hours :p

    More recently i built up a 8x1.5tb RAID-5 array, copied ~4tb of data to it and moved all the drives into the machine it was going in. Turns out i forgot to plug one of the power leads back into a drive. The raid card then refused to accept the drive back into the array (nothing we did would make it accpet the drive and i have no idea why :/). It also takes ages to get ~4tb off, remove and create the array again, then put all the data back :rolleyes:
     
  7. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Bloody RAID, I've only got 3 x 500GB and the amount of space my RAID5 takes up on them (excluding the RAID0 I've also got on them thanks to matrix RAID) is about 1TB I'm guessing, and even that is taking ages to rebuild. All because I forgot to plug in a SATA cable. The greatest offense is that the OS's RAID0 booted up fine once the cable was reconnected, obviously the Intel controller thought the data wasn't "consistent" enough on the RAID5, so has decided to rebuild it with essentially the same data that's already on the drive :(. At least I know what happens when a drive fails now. At least it isn't like Windows software RAID5 which rebuilds from the very beginning (ie, you've just formatted it and it decides it has to rebuild a blank array)
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  8. Goonit

    Goonit Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    403
    Bought an external 1TB drive recently tested it with ctools, backed up everything from a few different HDDs to the new drive, organised it etc etc.. formatted the old drives. Then I went off to make a copy of the new external to another computer plugged it in and it only recognized a quarter of what I had put onto this new drive. I was completely flipping out, as it had family photos, moves etc which I'd just completely deleted off the old drives... Turned out all it was, was the USB cable wasn't plugged all the way into the external drive. :upset:
     
  9. titan87

    titan87 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Canberra
    Raid-0 just works because the disks don't get market as bad so the controller doesn't care as long as the drives are present its functional.

    Even the proper hardware raid cards get upset if you take one of their drives out in a raid 5/50 or 6/60 array and put it back in. they still do a full consistency check to make sure its all up to date and exactly where its supposed to be. I know i would rather they did that than realise that somethign had been changed since the drive dropped and the array has failed and its all gone because it didn't bother :p
     
  10. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Thats all well and good, but geez, I didn't even get as far as loading the OS (turned it off as soon as I saw "Degraded". Anyway, it's not doing a verification check, it's treating it as a new disk and is therefore rebuilding it's data :(. A simple question like "It was detected that the hard drive that used to be in this array has been removed recently. If you recently did maintenance to the disk and forgot to plug it's cable in, press Skip, otherwise press Rebuild". Since the machine wasn't ale to boot, it was impossible to write to the array.

    Easy. Anyway, I could just as easily take the disk out, put it in another machine, change some bits and bytes and put it back and it would not rebuild.

    PS: Intel Matrix RAID is not a proper RAID card, so even they complain ;)
     
  11. Dezza Bot

    Dezza Bot Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,609
    Location:
    Central Coast, NSW
    I fired up my main pc one morning to find it's primary drive didn't start. Later that day I was up and running again by buying a new hard disk and restoring from my backups.
    That was ages ago nowadays, I could be up and running within minutes even if all my drives attached to my computers spontaneously failed.

    On the flip side I've had to come in for a company that had a raid controller fail and take all their drive with it. No backups there of course. About two days later they were able to do a minimal amount of work. I've seen more than a few small businesses actually close up shop permanently due to a single drive failure and a general lack of knowledge about backups/redundancy.
     
  12. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Huh? How? Do you keep spare drives with your data already on them in your cupboard or something,surely you need HDDs to install in the PC and also some form of fast backup mechanism (to be up in minutes is pretty fast for a complete drive failure?)
     
  13. Dezza Bot

    Dezza Bot Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,609
    Location:
    Central Coast, NSW
    Drive in the cupboard is a ghost of the os done every week, so I can just pop it straight in. Plus a daily differential backup to an external drive, usually a tiny amount of data, unless I've done a lot of work. So all I have to do is swap the faulty drive out and do a restore the whole process takes under 10mins. Bear in mind that while I've tested this with a dry run, I've never actually had to use it for real :)

    Hard disks are really cheap.
     
  14. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,824
    Location:
    Canberra
    You use RAID5 when you want absolute data security - so re-building the array when anything strange happens makes sense.

    With RAID0, you can't rebuild the array (there's no redundancy to rebuild from). Therefore the controller takes the next best option, which is to attempt to use the array anyway. In this case, it has worked. If the failure was caused by something else (maybe a drive dying) then obviously it'd fail, while RAID5 would keep going.
     
  15. viggenn

    viggenn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Had 2 Western Digital 80GB IDE drives in RAID0 on a Asus P4P800 Deluxe (on-board controller). One day without warning the board just dies so there goes about 120GB worth of data :upset: (this was back in the day when dial-up was the bomb :lol:). Tried recovering the data, took about 10 hours, but got nothing useful out of it in the end :(
     
  16. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Yeah, true. I suppose I shouldn't complain, seeing as I'd chosen RAID5 in the first place :D. It seemed bad, but now I've properly thought about it, it's really done it's job, I mean, I'm still able to use it while this is happening, if it had just died in the ass on single drive, I would've had to restore backups, which takes time. RAID5 takes longer to rebuild of course, but you are ready to go soon after it has failed (after I've installed an OS in my case, as the RAID0 would have failed if a drive had actually failed) and while there's a significant loss in performance during the outage and for a while after, it's a small price to pay for the ability to continue on. The main reason I chose RAID5 over RAID1 is RAID1 is a gross waste of space. While offering better write performance, write performance on my data array isn't important and read speed is superior on RAID5 I should think. My hybrid approach allows me to have an OS on RAID0 over 3 drives (at the start of each drive for better performance) which I don't care about and my important data on RAID5 with redundancy to get me going quickly after a failure. Since a failure would leave me a disk short for at least a few days, that would be quite important (can't restore a backup without a new disk to install unless theres enough space somewhere else)
     
  17. rowan194

    rowan194 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,031
    Hmm... sounds like you're using MatrixRAID's partitioning so you have the RAID0 and RAID5 arrays on the same set of 3 drives? Why not push it up to 4 drives and then setup your OS array to be RAID10?

    (Bear in mind that having your OS and data arrays on the same physical drives will probably incur a performance hit...)
     
  18. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Haha, yeah, thats true, but is also true for a single drive and standard partitions, the performance hit isn't significant for me, because my data usually isn't accessed at the same time as programs (ie, to play a game, which is installed on the RAID0, it rarely accesses the RAID5 area). I have purchased a Samsung F3 500GB HDD, which I was planning to replace the current one with (the current one I wish to replace is a Momentus 7200.4 2.5" drive, which is a perfectly good drive, but was going to replace for consistency as the other 2 are 3.5" although are old 7200.10 and AAJS drives), but you bring up an interesting point with a RAID 10 which I might consider doing. What's the go with expansion of RAID5 using Matrix RAID? Is it as snail slow as rebuild, or slower again? I actually think I'll need to repull the data off the array come to think of it, as the expansion of the RAID0 to RAID10 would require a delete and restart approach and the controller would refuse, because the RAID 5 only spans 3 disks and not the full 4 (therefore requiring a start from scratch). I definitely will consider it though now you've mentioned it, although a slight drop off in performance would occur from dropping 1 of the disks, I assume the new F3 will beat out the 7200.4 (the current performance king of the three)
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  19. noobmastery

    noobmastery Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Sydney, 2088
    The migration (what intel calls it) of raid volumes works fairly well.
    I expanded a 2 disk RAID0 to 4 disk RAID5 as an overnight job (seagate ST31500341 drives)
    You should be able to turn a RAID0 volume into a RAID10 volume no problem provided you don't attempt to decrease the capacity available. Expanding RAID5 is also fairly easy.
     
  20. karlcloudy

    karlcloudy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Yeah, what I'm worried about is the fact that my RAID0 will most definately decrease the capacity available on each of the disks. It is a 3 drive RAID0 at this point, I want to have the same capacity when I install the 4th, but this means chewing more space on each of the drives, along with expanding the RAID5 simultaneoudly as Intel Matrix RAID doesn't support disks being in multiple arrays. So I can't define a new RAID10 group with the start of the four disks, install windows, then expand the RAID5 to the 4 disks afterwards. Basically this is how it's setup atm:

    RAID 0 = 300GiB over 3 disks (AAJS +B7200.12 + M7200.4)
    RAID 5 = Est. 731.4GiB over 3 disks (AAJS + B7200.12 + M7200.4)

    This is what my projected array is going to be (if I decide to expand instead of replace the 7200.4):

    RAID10 = 300GiB over 4 disks (AAJS + B7200.12 + M7200.4 + F3)
    RAID5 = Est. 1172MiB over 4 disks (AAJS + B7200.12 + M7200.4 + F3)


    I'm using the binary sizes there as thats what the controller works in, each 500GB disk is ~465.7GiB iirc. I chose exactly 300GiB at the time as that was a round number and I used 300GiB for the system partition when I just had one 2 disk RAID0 array
     

Share This Page