Raid 0+1: 0: Performance & Capacity. 1: Reliability. How easy/diff?

[PhxKen]

Doing a new build and was wondering if it was a simple endeavor utilize Raid 0+1's features of performance, capacity, and reliability? How many HD's would be needed or 0+1? Etc, etc, etc. Any preferable HD's?

Is it simpler, easier, cheaper to go for Raid 0 (performance & capacity), and find an alternative, cheaper, easier method of backup to cover the base of reliability? (I know Raid 0+1 users also use additional backup measures)

I barely know what I'm talking about so any primers, article links on this front would be much appreciated. First up is confirming the Raid 0+1 characteristics I alluded to, or correcting them.
Much thanks.

 

[redrabbit803]

raid 0+1 requires 4 drives. raid 0 and 1 need only 2. 3 if you include a backup. Now in theory you can do a hardware raid 0 and then do a software mirror of that raid 0 to a equal size drive. The problem with this configuration is you have two weaknesses. One is if you experience disk corruption at the software raid level and two is if the raid 0 becomes corrupt and thereby corrupts the software mirror. What I ended up doing is a single mirror set with backup (3 drives). I would have done the 0+1 raid if i had the room in my case. I'd go for it if you have the $$$. I recommend raid 0,1, and 0+1 for OS/storage. Raid 5 and higher for long term data storage.

As for drives I recommend the WD caviar 640GB Blacks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319

 

[goobaah]

I would decide on what capacity you need and your budget before deciding on a raid level and ignore speed gains. That is what SSD's are for. RAID 5 wastes less disk space, but if you need less than 1.5 TB, just get two cheap 1.5 TB and mirror them. Its simple and a disk failure results in a quick rebuild compared to RAID 5. Try to avoid booting off a raid 5 partition if you can.

 

[anglad]

goobah, why do you recommend avoiding booting from a RAID 5 partition? What potentially could happen?