Raid 0 and bios update

[Victor79]

I have just assembled a comp on P5B deluxe and want to set my two raptor disks as a RAID-0 system (before installing OS).

My first question whether I need to update BIOS first and then set RAID and install OS, or I can update BIOS later and it should bot interfere with my RAID?

Second question is what are goods or bads of this RAID 0? Since reading from HDD takes much more time than reading from memory, I thougth if I set raid 0, system would work almost twise as fast, is it true? How volnurable will be the system and saved data?

I have two raptor 1500 disks:

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16822136012

 

[rwpritchett]

I have a RAID0 setup on a P5B-Deluxe and I've flashed my BIOS probably a total of 5-6 times. A BIOS flash does not interfere or corrupt the RAID. However, after a BIOS flash, the settings are set to default and therefore you need to set the BIOS for RAID after a flash.

Read Tom's recent article Cheap RAID Ravages WD Raptor to get some information about RAID vs. single drives.

Now, about the risks involved, you will find a lot of naysayers who will say "RAID0??? NEVER!!!!! YOUR ARE AN IDIOT FOR CONSIDERING IT!!!! IT DOUBLES YOUR CHANCE OF DATA LOSS!!!"

I'm a certified quality engineer (CQE), however, and I look at systems differently. While it is true that the probability of data loss doubles with a two disk array, I like to use reliability statistics.
Think of a single die with six sides. If you roll it, it is absolutely certain that one, and only one, number will result. Each number has a 1-in-6 probability of being the result, if the roll is truly random. That's probability.
Complex systems, on the other hand, have many individual variables that contribute to the total reliability of the system as a whole. For example, if your hard drives each are 90% reliable (meaning that there is a 90% chance that the equipment will work without failure before being replaced) and you have two in a system in which both must function in series for the entire system to function, then the overall reliability is the product of 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 (81%). Most people would erroneously tell you these two hard drives would be 45% reliable in a RAID0.

So yes, you are taking a greater risk running RAID0, but not as severe as some will lead you to believe. The real lesson is this: if you have a single hard drive, you should backup your data. If you have a RAID0 setup, you should back up your data. As long as you have a good backup plan, then go ahead and try RAID0. If you don't have any kind of backup plan, well... you deserve to lose your data, RAID or no RAID.

I've personally been running a RAID0 for 3 years now and I do notice the extra speed, especially with large files. Don't setup the RAID0 unless you plan on buying a third hard drive for backup, though.

 

[Victor79]

I am definitly accepting the risk of having both working properly. I am more worried about other types of risks. While two independent hardrives work together it seems to me so hard to syncronize the work correctly (exactly what RAID does)... Setting up a raid I solely relay on stability of my whole system working with it (in particular motherboard). I guess I can't just take those disks and put them into another computer to work with them.

Thank you for your reply, I'll definitly go for it.

 

[rwpritchett]

Yes, that is one more drawback to RAID. You can't just pull the disks out and plug them into a different controller and expect them to work. Therefore, if your motherboard or HDD controller dies on you, that's another contributing factor that will result in data loss. Some people recommend using an addon controller so you can move the array around. Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal to reinstall the operating system and programs if you need to. It's things like digital photgraphs, video, mp3's, financing backups, etc. that you want to be absolute in backing up on a non-RAID drive.