I just set up my RAID Array with two Maxtor 7200rpm 30gig ATA100 drives. I want to store data on it for basically a backup and I was thinking that RAID 1 is going to be the best for that ... Then I thought that I have 60gigs there for the taking if I put it in a RAID 0 and that just seemed really cool ...
Main question would be what is more reliable? I know that if a drive fails in a RAID 1 you can add another one at the same capacity and rebuild it and that the RAID 0 is mainly for speed. I'd like to have the Array for both backup and games, but I don't want to sacrafice reliability for speed? Am I screwed?
<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>
You know the score. One alternative is to have CD/RW back-ups of your RAID 0. Another is to get two more drives and have RAID 0+1. Combining for performance and mirroring for data integrity.
One other option is to create a system partition of about 2GB on your RAID 0 and then get a 2GB disk for the back-up of it. This might not be ideal, depending on how much system stuff you use, but you never know.
If the best things in life are free, why do I keep upgrading my system? :smile:
Raid 0+1 will gives you data security but will negates the speed improvement. I'll just add another old harddisk to backup whatever data I had on the raid and also a ghost image of the original setup on the raid.
Assuming an ideal condition. You half the time taken to write to disk with Raid 0. Improvement in speed. Then in Raid 1, you copy whatever is written to another location making the writing operation a little longer. Unless the writing and backing-up is written at the same time and at the same speed as Raid 0 alone.
Point noted, but for home use and the need for 4 drives, personally, I rather not. Then again it's a matter of choice, I prefer simplicity and don't mind doing the backup. Actually I place in a line in the autoexec.bat file to copy just the very important files.
In raid 0+1 both the ide channels are occupied. Unless the bandwidth for each channel is more than adequate to write and mirror at the same time and at equal time as writing in raid 0 alone, then there's really something to shout about, raid 0+1 that is otherwise it's just another backup.
The two channel would be a bottleneck for RAID 0 and 4 drives (They have the FastTrak TX4 for this where it has 4 channels and controllers are on board to handle sychronous communication from each and limited to one drive per channel) but not RAID 0+1. As this array never reads off 4 drives, only 1 drive per channel if set up properly. But you do get 4 drives looking for the start of the same data.. so access times can sometimes improve over RAID 0 with the same read benefits of RAID 0 and redundancy of RAID 1, which is what I said before at a hefty cost of a minimal 4 drive requirement.