Raid 0 Vs No Raid!

[coolmac11]

I was wandering if I were to buy a 500GB HD, and run it on a sytem normally, would that be safer than 2x 250GB HD's running on Raid 0? What I mean to ask is would the chances of HD failure be more probable in Raid 0 or just one drive. Will data recovery work just the same on two drives on Raid 0 or will recovery be impossible (ex. microsoft's system restore). What percentage increase of failures or lost data will Raid 0 have vs. one drive? Is having one drive more safer than two drives on Raid 0. I know that Raid 1 is very safe, but I dont want to buy 2 HDs where one will be sitting to back up all the data (I have external USB keys/Drives/hard copies!), what i mean is I dont want to buy 2x 250GB and only have the capacity of one 250GB drive!

PS: I read the sticky and some of my questions have been answered there, but not these obviuosly!

*****Also I'm more concerned about safety rather than performance. But if Raid 0 and no raid are the same (safety wise) I would go Raid 0.

 

[terrifiedkiller]

i would think it would be impossible because half of each and every file you have is on each hard drive. I had a raid0 and never had one single issue with it it was great. Some games got a good boost from it (those that have alot of graphics to load as you move as it transfers from your hard drive to be rendered faster then a standard non raid drive) which is great for games like vanguard. Games and stuff will load and install faster too.

 

[Mobius]

RAID 0 is precisely twice as likely to fail as a single drive - DUH. And, if one drive fails, you lose all your data. It's that simple. Stay well clear of RAID 0, or you will regret it.

 

[terrifiedkiller]

RAID 0 is precisely twice as likely to fail as a single drive - DUH. And, if one drive fails, you lose all your data. It's that simple. Stay well clear of RAID 0, or you will regret it.

its obvious the above poster doesnt know shit ya its more likely to fail (still unlikely) but the performance boost will be well worth it lol

 

[smartel7070]

If you want to read some more there was a very good thread on this a couple of days ago here http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/RAID-single-drive-suck-ftopict229802.html . Very interesting.

Mobius ... if your single drive fails you think you won't lose your data also ??? the solution is called BACKUPS and it works great, you should give that a try instead of giving poor advice. Raid0 rules if you know what you are doin.

 

[terrifiedkiller]

If you want to read some more there was a very good thread on this a couple of days ago here http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/RAID-single-drive-suck-ftopict229802.html . Very interesting.

Mobius ... if your single drive fails you think you won't lose your data also ??? the solution is called BACKUPS and it works great, you should give that a try instead of giving poor advice. Raid0 rules if you know what you are doin.

so true i have treid raid0 a few times myself and have had no problems only reason i not using raid atm is i picked the wrong motherboard when i went and rebuild my comp. I cant belive how asus put one raid sata port on the inside and the other on the outside lol

 

[angelkiller]

But think about it this way. Either way, if ONE drive fails, you lose all your data. Statistically, you are twice as likely to lose your data, but, either way, if one drive fails, All your data is gone.

Knowing this, I'd say go for the Raid 0. (even though you have two chances of losing your data.)

 

[terrifiedkiller]

But think about it this way. Either way, if ONE drive fails, you lose all your data. Statistically, you are twice as likely to lose your data, but, either way, if one drive fails, All your data is gone.

Knowing this, I'd say go for the Raid 0. (even though you have two chances of losing your data.)

ya even though you do have twice the risk the risk is still incredibally small and if you know how to handle your computer (by limiting the times where the power just goes completely off without a proper shutdown and so on thus a ups comes in handy) and that your raid controller is good (doesnt crash systems) you'll have very little issues with a raid

 

[chuckshissle]

Normal single drive = cheap, normal performance and secure.

Raid 0 configuration = expensive, fastest performance and low security.

Raid 0 is good for gaming and other things you want to load quickly or if you're just impatient. But always have a backup disks for important data and storage.

 

[piratepast40]

psst ... hey guys .... the big fight is in the other thread

 

[pat]

Normal single drive = cheap, normal performance and secure.

Raid 0 configuration = expensive, fastest performance and low security.

Raid 0 is good for gaming and other things you want to load quickly or if you're just impatient. But always have a backup disks for important data and storage.

No matter if it is RAID0, RAID1 or single drive, not having a backup is not a good thing.. controller failure van affect RAID0, RAID1 and single drive as well..

 

[terrifiedkiller]

Normal single drive = cheap, normal performance and secure.

Raid 0 configuration = expensive, fastest performance and low security.

Raid 0 is good for gaming and other things you want to load quickly or if you're just impatient. But always have a backup disks for important data and storage.

normal = secure? LOL and raid 0 can be cheaper when compared to a differnt drive like the wd raptor its perforamnce can be beat by using 2 cheaper hd's either way there is no such thing as a secure hard drive if that was true there would be no viruses or hackers and yes backing up is a good thing with a single drive or a raid heh

 

[Aids]

He means secure as in failure isn't as imminent. No need to mock him with that massive LOL.

When you use raid you put yourself up for potential failure because you are now relying on 2 drives as if they were one. As a poster stated above, you are basically doubling your chances of failure. Not denying the fact that one drive can crap out just as easily, but raid configurations are known to have more issues than single drive configurations.

I've got Raid 0 and have had a few problems with it myself. It's worth it only if you are willing to put up with some of the problems you may run into. Otherwise, i would just grab a single drive and have at it.

 

[Aids]

Also, you can't throw in the WD Raptor as a price comparison, that is purely an enthusiast drive and is priced accordingly. You can grab a single 250 GB Drive for around 70 bucks on NEgg.

 

[chuckshissle]

LOL! I don't think you get it. Secure as in secure. There is very secure, absolutely secure, secure secure, secure, not so secure, not secure and so on. I meant secure.

There's is a secure hard drive the one that is turned off.

 

[terrifiedkiller]

Also, you can't throw in the WD Raptor as a price comparison, that is purely an enthusiast drive and is priced accordingly. You can grab a single 250 GB Drive for around 70 bucks on NEgg.

and that 70 bucks har ddrive wont perform as good as a wd raptor unless your do a raid with them so dont tell me i cant as you fail to prove it as it was a price vs performance comparison and not just a price comparison as in it would be cheaper to do a raid 0 with those 2 70 buck 250 gb hard drives vs just the wd raptor

 

[Aids]

Oh right, but that drive still costs more than twice what the 250 Gb does. And let me guess, this is the part where you're going to tell me that a 60% increase in price is worth a few extra FPS. If you have the budget, go for it. But if you're new to the pc world and want to play it safe, while on a budget (which is exactly what the OP is) thats the dumbest advice you could give anyone.

"LOL and raid 0 can be cheaper when compared to a differnt drive like the wd raptor its perforamnce can be beat by using 2 cheaper hd's"

So, what point are you trying to defend?

 

[terrifiedkiller]

LOL! I don't think you get it. Secure as in secure. There is very secure, absolutely secure, secure secure, secure, not so secure, not secure and so on. I meant secure.

There's is a secure hard drive the one that is turned off.

lol i didnt get it didnt i lol i was thinking data security as in secure from unauthorized access (aka hacking and viruses) not risk of failure hehe.
anywho if your raid controller is worth anything it would have very few problims if not none

 

[terrifiedkiller]

Oh right, but that drive still costs more than twice what the 250 Gb does. And let me guess, this is the part where you're going to tell me that a 60% increase in price is worth a few extra FPS. If you have the budget, go for it. But if you're new to the pc world and want to play it safe, while on a budget (which is exactly what the OP is) thats the dumbest advice you could give anyone.

"LOL and raid 0 can be cheaper when compared to a differnt drive like the wd raptor its perforamnce can be beat by using 2 cheaper hd's"

So, what point are you trying to defend?

your own idiotic point that was tying to point out that you cant throwh in the wd raptor as a price comparison of course you can when you compare the price vs perfomrance of those 2 250 gig hd's that costed 70 each vs one wd raptor lol .

 

[mrmez]

RAID 0 is precisely twice as likely to fail as a single drive - DUH. And, if one drive fails, you lose all your data. It's that simple. Stay well clear of RAID 0, or you will regret it.

its obvious the above poster doesnt know **** ya its more likely to fail (still unlikely) but the performance boost will be well worth it lol

Way to go bashing the 1st person that gets it right.

RAID 0 isnt really RAID... more like AID.
RAID 1 is prob what ur looking for. If one R1 drive fails u still retain 100% functionality, hence the R(edundant) component. R0 stripes the data across 2 (or more) drives. Hence... lets say u have a 10Mb MP3 file in R0, ~5Mb will be on drive 1 and ~5Mb on drive 2. Soo... if one drive fails all ur left with is 5Mb of a file in fragments.

If u have 4x drives? u can do a combo of 0+1. That will give u the speed of 0 + the reliability of 1

 

[terrifiedkiller]

RAID 0 is precisely twice as likely to fail as a single drive - DUH. And, if one drive fails, you lose all your data. It's that simple. Stay well clear of RAID 0, or you will regret it.

its obvious the above poster doesnt know **** ya its more likely to fail (still unlikely) but the performance boost will be well worth it lol

Way to go bashing the 1st person that gets it right.

RAID 0 isnt really RAID... more like AID.
RAID 1 is prob what ur looking for. If one R1 drive fails u still retain 100% functionality, hence the R(edundant) component. R0 stripes the data across 2 (or more) drives. Hence... lets say u have a 10Mb MP3 file in R0, ~5Mb will be on drive 1 and ~5Mb on drive 2. Soo... if one drive fails all ur left with is 5Mb of a file in fragments.

If u have 4x drives? u can do a combo of 0+1. That will give u the speed of 0 + the reliability of 1

bashing the first person who got it righit? ROFL more like bashign the first person who got it wrong. As if you got it right if raid 0 wasnt raid it wouldnt have the name raid 0 lol your thinking jbod which isnt a raid lol. there is multiple versions of a raid and each of them except for jbod is just as bit of a raid as raid0 they all are different of course

 

[SomeJoe7777]

Moebius is mostly correct.

RAID 0 has exactly twice the likelihood of data loss as a single drive of the same type as used in the RAID 0 implementation.

RAID 0 is indeed a bit of a misnomer. RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks (or Drives). All other levels of RAID (1,5,6,10,0+1, etc.) have a redundant characteristic in that they can handle a drive failure without losing data.

RAID 0 does not have that characteristic - loss of any operating drive loses all data. Since there is no redundancy in a RAID 0, it is sometimes called "AID 0" (dropping the R to emphasize that there is no redundancy in the setup).

It is a fact that RAID 0 raises the risk of data loss as I stated above. However, the risk vs. reward balance is up to each individual, and is highly dependent on what that individual is going to do with his RAID 0 array. On a server containing important data, RAID 0 is probably not a good idea given the higher probability of data loss. On a gaming machine where the RAID 0 will only store the game files, there's probably no bad outcome if the RAID 0 array dies except perhaps a loss of time to reinstall the software. So each individual has to weigh the risk vs. reward to his individual situation.

 

[coolmac11]

So in the end will one big HD have a chance (I'm making this up, just for example!) 1/1000 to fail while Raid 0 has 2/1000 (1/500) chance to fail?

 

[terrifiedkiller]

correct unless you have a bad raid controller then the chances increase greatly and doing alot of imiproper shutdowns can increase the risk too

 

[Aids]

*****Also I'm more concerned about safety rather than performance. But if Raid 0 and no raid are the same (safety wise) I would go Raid 0.


Stick with a single drive.

Terrifiedkiller
You keep telling me that you CAN compare the raptors. When he posted the original statement he mentioned nothing about any sort of enthusiast product. You simply stated "And raid 0 can be cheaper when compared to a differnt drive like the ed raptor its perforamnce can be beat by using to cheaper hd's"

Your spelling, not mine.

Setting that aside, you just basically told him raid 0 was cheaper than not using raid. Even though you mentioned an enthusiast drive that is priced WAY above normal HD prices. Thats the point I'm trying to get at. Now do everyone a favor and get firefox 2, use the spellchecking option and quit giving bad advice.