Comparison of Software RAID on Windows versus Linux
The basic idea of RAID (Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks) is to combine multiple small, independent disk drives into an array of disk drives which yields performance and recoverability exceeding that of a Single Large Expensive Drive (SLED). Redundancy is also provided (unless RAID 0) which allows easy and often automatic recovery from hard disk crash. With the reduction in price of ATA and SATA drives it is often a good idea, even for desktop computers, to setup a RAID 1 system to allow you to function in the event of hard disk failures. In RAID 1 two harddisks (or portions of them) mirror each other. RAID 1 is essential for our environment. I have tested both Windows software RAID facility as well as Linux RAID capability. Linux RAID support is way superior to Windows and should by itself be the reason to switch to Linux. I have given 4 reasons to support my claim below.
Linux supports RAID on block devices. So you can setup RAID between two partitions on the same harddisk or even on two RAID 0 array, effectively creating RAID 10 array. Windows simply supports RAID 0 and GBOD (known as linear on Linux) only for non-server users. Linux support all RAID variants. Even Windows server doesn't support the intermediate RAID variants.
In Linux as well as Windows you can create RAID arrays spanning machines.
In Windows you cannot install the operating system on RAID. In linux you can even install the operating system on RAID file system. This means if one of the hard disk dies you can easily boot from the other hard disk (assuming you transferred the MBR earlier).
If you have spare harddisks, Linux will automatically configure it and add to the RAID array, should one of the RAID disks fail. This is to my knowledge not possible in Windows.
Linux RAID can be easily configured during installation. All the partitions (/, /opt and even swap) can and should be RAID enabled. Windows RAID is harder to configure and is done after installation of the OS, from disk management.
I think comprehensive RAID support by itself (not to mention security) should be reason enough for SMB servers to switch to / use Linux.
Filed under Computer Security, Enterprise Software, Hardware, Headline News, Linux, Management, Microsoft, Open Source Software, Technology, Web, Windows | 
| 
RSS 2.0 |
Trackback this Article
| 
Email this Article
You may also like to read |
April 30th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Windows does support software raid 1 for boot. Don’t know where you got your information from on that…
Windows SERVER supports raid 1 for boot, and also supports software raid 5 for additionaly drives/volumes. I can present a screenshot if you want.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:35 am
Since I don’t like sending unsupported comments, here is my support, in reference to my previous message.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Windows 2000 Server does support RAID 1 on boot partition as I verified from Microsoft’s web site. Unfortunately the same benefit isn’t available on Windows XP / 2000 Pro software, which I used while evaluating RAID 1 support on boot devices. So I guess my option is to pay a ton for Windows 2000 server or go for Fedora Core 6. My choice is still the same. Anyway the other points are still valid. Thanks for the correction.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“Windows RAID is harder to configure and is done after installation of the OS…”
I have found it almost impossible to use a GUI tool for configuring Raid1 on a post installation FC6 system. I do find it irritating that you MUST comfigure the raid partitions (/dev/mdX) using disk druid (the only GUI option i have came up with for linux).
As for Windows, it takes less than 5 sec to make a Raid1 of a post installation system… so why “…harder to configure…”, i really don’t know why you think of this for Windows, when it is clear it’s not.
Next time: for a real beneficial comparison try to be more neutral sticking to the facts