RAID - worth it with non-boot drive(s)?

[dannyaa]

Hey guys,

I have a Seagate SATA 160gb as my boot drive.

I just got a great deal on two Seagate SATA 300gb drives at Fry's ($110 each), so I picked up two.


Anyway, I was wondering if I should put them in RAID or leave them seperate? They would not be my boot drive, I would use them mostly for storing .avi files for video and editing. However, I would probably have some games installed on there, as well (although most all my applications are on the C:\ drive).

Would I see much benefit having RAID for this? Or would it be better to have them non-RAID, in case on fails I haven't lost all my data?


Thanks for the advice...!



P4c 3.2Ghz NWood / ABIT AI7 / 1GB XMS-Pro DDR 3200 / BFG GF-6800GT 256mb / Antec 380W

A64 3000 Venice / Epox 9npa-U / 1GB HyperX DDR 3200 / XFX GF-6600GT 128mb / Antec 330W

 

[fishmahn]

I would keep them as separate drives, but if I wanted extra performance I would RAID 0 them.

Since you're doing AVIs and such, the transfer rate of RAID 0 would be useful.

Mike.

<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>

 

[emogoch]

I can't help but laugh at you wusy for that comment. Not that I think it's a bad idea on his case, but purely for the fact that every other time I've seen RAID 5 mentioned, you've shot it down without a $200 card being included as well.

 

[Codesmith]

No sense in stripping, but if you are worried about losing data when one of the drives fail you can mirror then.