Mind you - this is pretty much all a matter of opinion... Here's the difference between the two: RAID0 spreads your data across multiple drives, ONCE; it is not replicated - the advantage is that the disk controller can read and write two channels (at least) simultaneously; RAID1 duplicates your data on two drives; the controller can still read from two channels, but writes are normal speed, as it must write to both drives together... What I use it for: I keep my system (boot) partitions on a RAID0 pair (of VRs), and my swap partition on a separate RAID0 pair (of VRs); my system partitions are not changed that often, and, when I'm particularly 'happy' with a complex install, I image the boot partition(s) to a seperate T-and-a-half backup drive; then, if I lose a RAID0 pair (which is possible, though, knock on wood, I haven't done it yet), restoration is no big deal; this allows the system, loading programs, etc., to use four disk channels at the same time, which makes it 'fly'; I keep all my data (from ALL OSs) on a RAID1 pair (of RE3s), where they're automatically backed up by each other - that has been trashed (mostly by errant installs of (I think, Elbonian) software (this is a development system - I use a lot of complex tools that are prone to disasters) numerous times - what has happened is the Intel Matrix Manager has informed me that my RAID1 has a problem, and then fiddles around in the background while it rebuilds the array - placing my data at no risk...