Hey guys searched the forum but still could not get a def answer.


you can read my SIG for my specs... ok...


My WD SATA-2 160gb is plenty fast.. well I just bought another HD, same model and everything.

I want to set up a RAID 0 but will I notice a big differance in perforamnce over one single HD.

or is it in my best interest to just make it a 2nd HD for more space..

let me know! thanks!

In my opinion the risks of losing all your data to a controller malfunciton and the difficulty of ever moving the array intact to another motherboard far outway any benifits.

Sure the transfer rate almost double's, but when you look at real world benchmarks the effects are by comparison underwhelming.


--

If that were my setup I would

A)

Use RAID 1 (each drive has a copy of your data and is readable by a non-raid controller so your data is extra safe), cuts capacity in half.

With a 30 GB C: OS Partition and a D: Partition for your desktop, my documents, email, personal files and downloads.

-or-

B) No RAID
1st Drive 30 GB OS partition rest D: personal documents as above
2nd Drive on large partition. Store downloads and backups here

---Explaination of above

You may want more or less than 30 GB for you installed programs depending on how many games/large apps you use.

Keeping the OS seperate aids in backups. That way you can backup just your OS and restore your OS without overwriting personal files.

I put C: and D: on the same drive because I move My Documents, My Desktop, Firefox/Thunderbird profiles to D: and this ensures that I never boot the system with D: absent.

Also on D: I make sure that all the important stuff that needs backuped up on a regular basis are inside the same root folder.

All non critical files can go anywhere other than C:

I recommend True Image 9 for OS backups and EMC Retrospect for files.

I would probably chose B over A because I usually need more storage.
Either A or B lets you automatically backup to a hard drive, and ensure's that you won't lose anything important if only one drive fails.


----Non RAID vs RAID 0 Benchmarks

Here is the article Anandtech did for the 750 GB Seagate. They run a lot of benchmarks on the drives alone and in RAID 0 and see what difference it makes for what uses.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/s [...] =2760&p=10

Thats the best link I have, if someone has a better single vs raid comparison please post it and I will add it to my bookmarks.

---People with other priorities will come to different conclusions.

You might what to repost this as a poll.

Some people want top performance no matter what the risks.

Some use their PC in a way where the huge increase in transfer rates really matter, making it well worth the risk.

A few may even consistently backup to DVD+RW making negating any risks.
[/quote]

You will notice difference if you play with big files. The system will feel faster, and will be in most case. If all you do is internet and office task, don't bother creating an array, you won't notice any speed difference.

I use RAID since 2001, and never had any problem. Just make sure HDD have enough clearance to avoid overheating, and you should be fine. As for the risk of loosing DATA, no matter the kind of drive, controller..blabla.. you should always have backup of your important file and not just rely on the HDD anyway.

If you have a backup of your important files, (no, Windows is not an important files.. just like all of your game that you have installation disk anyway.. or apps.) then just RAID both drive, make a 50 or more gigs of partiotion for the OS and install Windows. This will leave you with250 gigs of unpartitionned space for your storage pleasure.

Hello

In my opinion, you should go with raid 0. You will see the performance difference especially loading your games or starting up windows and large files.

In term of data safety, you should always have a back up of important files. I have two hd in raid 0 setup and i am planning to add two more when my budget allows me.

In short, go with raid 0.

Bye.

You sure won't loose any space by using raid 0, you'll have the same as if they were just 2 serparate drives.

I like the performance of RAID0 since I move a lot of large vid files and stuff. And if you get decent drives you have very little to worry about failures. I've had Raid0 systems in operation since 1998 and never had a single drive fail. Ironically some of my raid1 and raid5 systems have

I agree with Pat and htoon. You will see some increase in performance. How much exactly depends on what you do. Personally, after having use it in various systems for the past 9 years, I don't mess with it any more because I think the difference is really marginal. Windows boots a bit faster, not much, and the machine feels abit more responsive, though not much, and all in all I don't think it's worth the trouble for me.

However, just like said, 1 disk or 5 disk in a raid 6 array, you still need to backup your data, so not doing raid for the fear of losing data is the wrong idea.

I still use raid 5 in my servers, but I don't mess with strip sets in my workstations any more.

Um i dont know what your talking about but if he using RAID 0 with two 160 GB drives he will ONLY have 160 GB of Storage he will not have 320

Yes he will. You're thinking of RAID 1. Raid 0 is actually not redundant at all...it's AID.

Thank you Pain, don't know what it is with these n00bz these days....

RAID 0 will, real world, get you maybe 3%, if that.

Given your data is twice as likely to be lost, not worth it.

Buy a Raptor and/or WD750 if you want and put all the OS stuff on that drive, same money, less risk....

Same money? Raptors and 750's are still very expensive per gb, the wd 320's are probably the best price per gig.

RAID0 is a good way to go...You will get realize the full capacity of both drives (2x160GB) as well as faster access times...now, keep in mind it's not a tremendous increase, but it is a significant improvement...example: i have 2x80GB WD drives in RAID0 and the 1x200GB drive stand alone scratch drive, both are caviars with 8MB cache and same seek times...with HD Tach, the 200GB scores 84MB/s whereas the 2x80GB RAID0 scores a 95MB/s...I do not notice a difference with small files, but large files, games, and windows load much faster than a single drive...

Keep in mind if one drive fails, then everything will be lost...I say go with the RAID0 for your OS and programs then snag a 320GB for scratch and saving important stuff to...and of course, don't forget to ghost an image or make a backup every now and then.

Good luck!

Well if even RAID5 is not meant for data safe storage, can someone tell me how professional storage company (Yahoo , hotmail for example) do their business

With RAID5 and/or RAID6 and lots of near-line and off-line backup systems.

For very good reliability I would recommend a RAID51 system. 2 RAID5's that are mirrored. Or a dual RAID1 where you mirror a mirrored array. Or if you really want to get serious, try a RAID61, you could have upto 4 hd's fail over the two RAID6's or an entire RAID6 and still have all your data.

When you consider a RAID5 in an enterprise situation, the sys admin will always (if he's smart) have a spare drive or two laying around for each array. That way if your hot spare (if you use them) recovers a failed hd you just slide the new one in, and viola another hot spare.

Data redundancy is like uh, something (brain freeze), you can always get more paranoid and throw in more safe guards, question is, how much are you willing to pay/give up for that security. RAID is very scalable and now that RAID6 is really coming to market there are no ends to the possibilities.

Since we're off on a tangent, I may as well continue At my office I have a RAID5 server, with a RAID5 backup server, both domain controllers. If I have a disk failure, I can swap a disk and be back up. If I have a server hardware crash on the main login server [where all the scripts are kept] then I can rewrite the login scripts on the backup server and remap all the network drives to my backup server and everyone can log back on in minutes. The backup server has a mirrored copy of the data.

I have a backup tape run each night, and backup tapes of course go home with me each night because all the kings RAID-5's and all the kings RAID-6's won't let you recover if your building burns down.

There are many other ways to do it, and much more expensive solutions. I run a fairly small office, so a lot of my method is rather brute force over finesse, but I have a limited budget.

Well if I am going to do a RAID 0 i will have 2x160 SATA II drives...

that will give me 320gb of space and increased performance....


I could load my OS and system files on my RAID 0 Configuration.. and then buy a Raptor 74 for $140 ish. but then I might as have kept my 160gb drive and bought a 150 Raptor drive for $300+


I am going to go with RAID 0 and see what happens... as for errors... I back up only my music and pictures.. all the other stuff on my computer is not really that important to me. Games.. i can install again, programs.. i can install again... finance stuff.. i always back up.

they both have 3 year warrentys so its all good. Thanks guys.

ya'll have a website that compares SATA II to SATA II w/ Raid 0?

thanks

~donKay

Now.. which raid controller should I use... the nForce4 SLi with nV RAID


or Silicon Image Sil3132

That's easy, nvraid.

Essentially, I agree with everything Codesmith said. The risk of data loss outweighs the speed benefits in almost every case. If you're doing serious, professional video editing or other work on huge files, such that the speed would matter, then buy another pair of drives and do RAID0+1, or do RAID5 with a spare. Make sure your PSU can handle the number of drives you have, plus at least one additional fan in the front of your case to cool them off.

I have to disagree a little bit, if you play games or use a lot of video, raid 0 is a perfectly acceptable setup, they are pretty darn reliable, like I've said before I've had more hd failures in Raid 5's and 1's than 0's, just luck of the draw really. And the average user on this forum won't be put off to much to just reinstall his os and apps if it does crash. I don't recommend more than 2 drives per array if you have anything remotely important, your save games may fall under this as you exponentially (not quite) increase your chance of failure.

Now if all you do is office and accounting type of stuff, setup a raid1, I know way more office's that don't backup than individual users!

edit: Saying never use RAID0 is akin to saying don't go outside when it's raining, you might slip, hit your head on a fire hydrent, pass out, fall into the gutter and get run over by a street sweeper and die.

Hello

Can you give me your 3d mark05 cpu score. i have a faster cpu but i do not receive the score you are having. I do not have sli setup,however . i believe your sli setup give your score a boost. so i want to know the scores of your cpu. If possible , please share them with me.

Bye