Is RAID 0 really the best for me?

Hyperfluxe

January 21, 2010 9:40:41 PM

Hey

I need helping on choosing what RAID level configuration I should get for my rig. I was thinking RAID 0 since it has the best performance (I'm only buying 2 HDD). I want to know the exact increase in chances of getting data loss, and I'm aware of that issue. If it's not that much, then I would think that it's worth risking my data for better performance. On my PC, I mainly do heavy gaming, and lots of 3D modeling/animation along with 2D arts, and some video/sound editing. I also use it for basic stuff like browsing and watching movies. Is there a better RAID level for my needs or should I get RAID 0? Also, could you guys recommend me good HDD to go with a RAID configuration? I was thinking 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3 times two, but there might be something faster than that...and I heard that it only has 16MB of cache which is bad apparently.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

More about : raid

| E-mail me updates
| Report abuse

vvhocare5

January 21, 2010 10:00:59 PM

OK....

There is no such thing as guarantees in using RAID0. I have used it for years without a single loss, but I make backups of stuff I cannot afford to lose. Games can be reinstalled, OS' reinstalled, but creative work must e saved - but that is true of any hard drive.

RAID 0 will make a noticeable improvment in Windows startup and loading games. It wont help with watching movies or frame rates during games (only level loads), but it will help when you encode video and sound files.

As for which drive, go look at the reviews on this site and decide which drive appeals to you. Personally they are all so close that I decide based upon a size and price. You wont look back.

I am (and have been) currently running two RAID0 sets. My RAID0 for my c: drive is two SSD's (used to be two WD Raptors) and my D: is 2 WD's in RAID0.
I couldnt even imagine not running RAID0 anymore....I was thinking of finding another WD drive and playing with 3 or 4 drives in RAID 0 for my D: drive...

Cache sizes vary based upon the size of the disk - larger storage has larger caches. Dont focus on just one feature - look at the benchmarks and go for it....

good luck

| Report abuse

Hyperfluxe

January 22, 2010 6:00:41 PM

Thanks man. I'll probably be going for RAID 0 then, but can anyone recommend me two HDDs that go well in RAID 0? I was thinking two 500GB HDDs, like the Samsung Spinpoint F3.

| Report abuse

Kewlx25

January 23, 2010 5:54:00 PM

A good RAID1 controller is near as fast as RAID0 for reading, but obviously not writing.

| Report abuse

Pointertovoid

January 26, 2010 11:27:47 PM

Nearly every controller is slow in Raid-1 reading. And if you add a controller to the mobo, it add its time to detect drives when booting.

Raid-0 improves speed for big files. To boot or launch applications, it's generally slower than a single disk, with recent 7200rpm disks.

It used to be faster at 7200rpm and 80GB per platter (60MB/s contiguous read), when I had one. Raptors stayed longer good in Raid-0 thanks to their access time. But now, with my 7200rpm and 500GB per platter (134MB/s contiguous read), Raid-0 is slower than a single disk to boot and launch applications.

With Ssd, my X25-E awaits the Cpu, so putting two in Raid wouldn't bring anything. Is it very different with slower Ssd?

-----

Reliability: there's so much difference between brands and models, who cares the factor-of-two? You need to make backups stored separately, whether with a single disk, a Raid-0 or a Raid-1 or 01 or 10 or 5 or whatever, since lightning or a faulty power supply destroys all disks at once.

| Report abuse