Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2x320gb RAID 0 or 2x80gb RAID 0 with a 320gb hd for storage?

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 14, 2006 1:48:21 AM

I am new to RAID and want to run RAID 0 on the new pc i build. I have an Abit AB9 Pro Motherboard that can run RAID 0 and many others.

I already own a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive and I am going to use it for my new pc i am building.

I was thinking that it would be faster to go with the 80gig RAID because 160gbs is plunty for a C:/ and i think it may be a little faster than the 320s because the hard drive wont have to seek as much even though the data is closer together on the 320s.

Also if i went with the 320s (just buying another Seagate 320) then i could risk loosing all of my data because I will be using RAID 0. But if I went with the 320s then i would have more than half a terabyte of storage!

I would not care too much if a drive failed on the operating system and apps RAID with the 2x80gb hard drives because I can just reformat, because with 2x80gb hard drives in RAID 0 i would be using the 320 I have for backup, and the only thing i care about mostly is my Music Collection, 63gigs :)  (11,200 songs) and my videos, movies, ect.

So my question is, which would be faster?...the 2x80gig for the C Drive in RAID 0 and the 320 for backup or 2x320gbs in RAID 0 partitioned for C drive to be 80gigs and the D drive to be 560gigs (risking loosing everything if one drive fails). And which one should I go for?...I dont care much about loosing anything on the C drive, just the music and stuff on the backup drive(D: Drive).

Please Share your opinions, knowledge, ect.

Thanks :) 
August 15, 2006 5:35:46 PM

I'm a noob, but I would definately not want to RAID0 those important files. Even having over half a TB of storage doesn't entice me: you could just buy another 320 gig disk later on if you needed more storage right? Of course, that's just me, so I have no idea what the performance is like. Having RAID0 and then data disks shouldn't kill any performance compared to raid'ing the 320 gigs right? Good luck!
August 15, 2006 6:13:27 PM

RAID 0 is dangerous, and even moreso if you are new to it. Some controllers are not very forgiving. I am not sure if current RAID controllers on mobos now have the same issue, but the controller I have will lose the array from something as simple as unplugging the SATA cable to reroute it.

I would highly recommend using RAID0 only for replaceable data (i.e. apps and OS). I would imagine that your need for RAID is for gaming purposes, so you can easily store your sensitive data on the 320GB drive and have all of the speedy apps run from the RAID array.
!