RAID 0, Is it worth it?

[GibsoN-]

I am currently in the process of ordering parts for a new PC. I recently heard about arranging two hard drives in RAID 0 configuration. I've learned that Pro's are a faster write (and read?) speed. A con is that if 1 drives fails, you will lose everything. So, my question is, what kind of experiences have you guys had with RAID 0. Is it worth the hassle of setup, and is there a noticeable difference between RAID 0 vs. a standard, single drive? I'm aiming for a total of 1TB, so it would either be Two 500GB in RAID 0, or just One single 1TB. Thanks for your time.

 

[sub mesa]

Depends on your usage. Do you have a backup or all your data? If you do, using RAID0 is not unsafe at all, provided the (older) backup is still usable; unlike data that changes frequently.

If you want performance on your system disk however, you really need to look at an SSD, for example the Intel X25-V 40GB; its an excellent disk albeit a bit small. Still should be enough for your OS + installed applications, just not any large games.

For large files, performance is largely irrelevant; if you're playing a movie the HDD isn't going to make that faster; even an ancient HDD can keep up with that kind of data rate. So performance with large files is only relevant when copying it. In that case, two 5400rpm "Green" disks in RAID0 is a logical choice.

In either case, you do need a backup with your important stuff (personal photos, documents, etc). An external 1-2TB disk is excellent for this task.

 

[sminlal]

For the most part RAID 0 improves transfer rates, which helps when you're copying large files. But it doesn't improve access times which is what counts most for tasks like booting the system or starting up applications.

 

[GibsoN-]

It sounds like there isn't a drastic difference in speed between RAID 0 and just a single hard drive. And personally, i don't care about windows boot up time. As long as it doesn't take over 1 minute, its fine. I think i will just stick to 1 drive, thanks for the help. Is there any point in getting the 64MB Cache HDD's? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533

I don't know much about HDD's, so sorry if I am coming off as being noobish. Thanks for the input

 

[sminlal]

The WD1002FAEX does perform better (i.e., has faster transfer rates) than the older WD Black drives, but it's mostly because it has higher data density and not because it has a larger cache.