I am about to build myself a new system, and am considering doing a RAID 0. I've never done a RAID before, but am intrigued to see how much faster the system would go, and because I love building systems, and would like to have done a RAID at least once.
Is it any less reliable than running one HDD? Does it shorten the life span of the HDD? I don't want to do it if I'm going to have to constantly redo the system because of the RAID, but if everyone has had no problems, then I would love to.
Go ahead an make a hardware RAID0 setup. Its pretty neat and fast. In reality you would be extremely unlucky to have any HD problems. Using HDs in RAID mode is not more stressfull or likely to cause individual disks to die.
Using HDs in RAID mode is not more stressfull or likely to cause individual disks to die.
I dont agree. If you have two individual drives, and you access data, only the drive where the data is located is operating/seeking. However, if you have the drives in RAID0, BOTH drives are operating/seeking each time any data is accessed. I would say thats more stressfull.
Keep in mind that also, its not just the hdd failing that can screw things up. If the mobo fails to. Also, dont trust it right away. I learned the hardway with an Abit kx7-333r. I had my soundcard using the same irq as the raid controller. So ever time I got my soundcard working, my controller would corrupt the OS and because of this I lost like 3 months of data. You really might want to have some backup.
The most stress is placed on a HD during spin up so this is when your HD is most likely to die. Seek operations are not particularly stressfull in comparison. In any event, I think the question meant "does RAID0 stress your HD above and beyond normal usage?". The answer is no, but clearly it stresses it more than if the drive was not being used.
A) You're not running a server for a business.
B) There's at least 200 other people in this forum who have a hard disk that's over 3 years old.
C) If one does go bad, you were the unlikely bastard out of the 100,000 others, and you'll probably get the next version drive by the time it goes out and you RMA it.
A two drive raid0 is a very good risk. A three drive raid0 makes me sweat just a tiny little bit. A four drive raid0 makes my sphinter clinch and my pupils dialate...
I have 2 40-gig drives and an MSI KT3 Ultra-ARU Mother Board. I use hardware raid0 and then used Part. Magic to split them into two 40's again. One is used for system and program files, the other for games and downloads.
I look at it like this; If one of my drives fails, I loose everything. If I go get an 80-gig drive and it fails, I loose everything. The 80-gig drive is not even close to the speed of my raided 40's.
My question is are their any boards out yet that has <A HREF="http://www.acnc.com/04_01_03.html" target="_new">Raid3</A> on board that are aimed at the general public (not a server board)? This would be the best form of raid for me. I mean what’s the cost of adding another 40-gig drive compared to having to back up 80-gig every time I add something I don’t want to loose?
<b><font color=blue>Paramedics - Does this mean there is always two of them ?</font color=blue></b>