Its been a while since I built a new computer system. My last system had a RAID 0 and I loved the speed of it. My current system does not have a raid.
Anyways, I am in the process of specing a new system. I would like to have RAID 0 again, but I am older now, have a wife, and a child. I know RAID 0 "doubles" the chance to loss all data, although I am still running my 4 year PC with RAID 0 with no problems. We keep alot of family photos on the computer that I do not want to loss.
I want speed and safety!
Which is better raid 10 or 0+1?
Whats the least amount of HDs needed? I think 4.
Would this work? RAID 0+1 where Drive 1&2 are WD Rapitors for extra speed, and 3&4 are normal hard drives?
RAID 10 and 0+1 are both virtually identical during normal operations. But RAID 10 performs much better during degraded conditions (i.e. one drive lost) and during the subsequent rebuild operations. Also, there are some conditions where RAID 10 can suffer more than one drive failure and still recover the data.
Both RAID 10 and RAID 0+1 require a minimum of 4 drives.
depends on the controller, some cheap raid controlers read a mirror just off 1 drive, so its no faster then a single drive, others read from both so read speed is as fast as raid 0 just slower write speeds. Also it depends on file size, raptors are better for small files, raid 10 is better for large ones