Raid 0 Vs No Raid!

[coolmac11]

Thanks you Aids, I think I will buy a single HD configuration until Raid 0 becomes more safety friendly... . I really don't care if games load 5 seconds faster with Raid 0 anyways, it would only be a major issue if single HDs take post 30 seconds... 8O. By the way, which capacity offers the best cost/GB?

Thanks

 

[pat]

Thanks you Aids, I think I will buy a single HD configuration until Raid 0 becomes more safety friendly... . I really don't care if games load 5 seconds faster with Raid 0 anyways, it would only be a major issue if single HDs take post 30 seconds... 8O. By the way, which capacity offers the best cost/GB?

Thanks

I have 5 hdd in my system. 2 are in RAID0, Fact is, I've been running RAID0 since 2001, and I never had any problem.

Since I have 5 hdd in my system, that means that I'm more at risk. So what. I have backup of my valuable stuff so if any or all of the 5 drives chrash at the same time, I won't loose any important files. What is so valuable? I think that personal data such as picture, video or some kind of personnal stuff. MP3s are not valuable stuff, unless you are caugh with some kind of DRM that prevent backup because thay can be found again you know where. same thing for movies... Internet is the biggest backup service, learn to use it.

So, if you can turn off your computer and the world is still running, then your data is not that important. Get 2 hdd, RAID0 them, get a smaller one as a backup drive, and synchronize your picture folder on both the array and the single drive. If you have other important stuff, just sync them too. Application like Second Copy allow just that. You simply backup what you want, no need for a backup of the OS, as it can be reinstalled, just like applications.

And if your luck is half of mine, you'll be fine for (at least)3.5 years before you'll have any problem...

 

[terrifiedkiller]

*****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.

now if you had one little bit of brain in your head you'd know i was talking the 2 cheaper hard drive in raid0 compared to a single wd raptor lmao but apparently you lack the thinking capacity to realize that Oh wait your the one that said i couldnt compare the price of the raptor with the other hard drive when i was clearing comparing cost vs performance lol 2 7200 rpm 70 dollar drives WILL outperform a 170 dollar wd raptor that only does 10000 lol THINK Aids think

 

[nukemaster]

*****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.

Maybe you are a candidate for raid 1

This will make 2 250's have the same data so a drive failure will not effect you at all, but you get half the space... Or if you have the space you can try 4 250's in raid 1+0 for a total of 500 gigs usable

Or just go raid 0 with 2 250's and get a backup drive in an external enclosure(e sata for speed usb for compatibility) for easy backups. Also look into Second Copy 7 for easy backup's

 

[Aids]

From what i've seen, the 250GB ish range is REALLY cheap.

 

[4745454b]

By the way, which capacity offers the best cost/GB?
Thanks

Seeing as you've come to the correct decision about whether to implement AID0 or not, I'll help you with your current question. 250GB drives on the lowend, but the 320GB drives are the best $/GB.

 

[4745454b]

Care to show me one benchmark that shows AID0 pays off for a gaming machine? I don't want to look at any synthetic benchie crap, show me a benchie that shows AID0 is faster (level load/FPS) then a single drive by at least 10%.

Good luck with that.

 

[_path_finder]

RAID 0 with decent backup software installed is my choice

 

[jitpublisher]

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.

No, no everyone...he is correct! A single drive has a 0.002% chance of failure within 3 years. A RAID 0 setup is 2 times as likely to fail, so with RAID 0 you have a 0.004% chance of failure. OMG! Pretty scary numbers there! :lol:

 

[Zorg]

Everyone is talking like a drive failure in RAID0 is the same as a failure in a single drive configuration. Drives don't necessarily fail all at once. In RAID0 if one drive starts to loose it you are screwed. If, in a single drive configuration, a drive starts to fail you can, in many cases, get your data off before the drive fails completely. And if necessary, you can use programs like SpinRite etc. Try doing any type of data recovery on RAID0. Then there are the aforementioned problems with regards to a lousy raid controller, of which there are probably many, and improper windows shut downs. I don't think I would be concerned about the latter because how many times does windows lock up anyway? LOL LOL LOL enough of the LOL, we are all older than twelve aren't we? Try using the :lol: so generously provided by THG forums.