Last message on previous page:
JackNaylorPE, I can see how that would work with the higher prices just to cover the higher cost to them of providing a 5 year warranty. I won't worry too much about the home vs server editions in future then...

The only reasons for RAID 0 are for space or speed. As your combined space is only 320GB, you could simply buy a 500GB hard drive and avoid the RAID. If it is for speed, then it makes sense, as long as critical data is backed up.

From the perspective of one who provides data recovery services, the odds of a drive crash in RAID 0 doesn't jump up from 1% to 9%, as each drive's odds of failure remains the same. So, your odds would, at best double. However, the cost to have a professional data recovery service recovery from RAID 0 can be more than double that of recovering from a single drive. The actual cost differences vary between labs.

Back to the backup. If your data is important to you, you should have a good backup routine in place whether you have a single drive or a rack mounted RAID 5 server.

Heres a prime example of benchmarks vs usability - http://www.anandtech.com/memory/sh [...] i=3287&p=6 - SSD vs Standard HDD, showing in the benchmarks a minor increase in performance not worth mentioning yet in real life eg loading apps and boot time etc nearly halves - same deal.

Wonder what two SSD's or even 4 in Raid0 would be like...

Interesting to see everyones input here.

I have been running a RAID 0 setup for the last couple of years with little problems. I am using an Adaptec controller.

I built a new system for my daughter last year and comparing the two systems I have to say that on boot & large file work, my 1.8 gig Semprom 3000 with raid really does have the edge over her E6750 Core 2 unit with single drive. Again I stress that this is only on boot & large files.

With my raid 0 config, I back up everything to a 3rd disk so not worried.

I have just assembled a new unit for myself which is a Q9450 processor and all the latest toys. I am about to install Vista 64 and origionally planned to go with a single HD. (I am really considering going back for a 2nd drive to raid this unit).

I think you have all convinced me not to. I did come across some benchmarks which involve SSD's and the new Velociraptor. May intrest some of you.

They can be found here.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/s [...] aptor.html

Cheers!

I recently put together a machine with Raid-0, based on the Asus P5Q motherboard (P45 chipset, ICH-10 Intel Matrix raid) and two Seagate *.11 drives. Comments relating to the thread:

- Benchmarked transfer rate was 120 MB/sec vs 60 MB/sec on a single drive, with CPU usage of about 3% in Raid-0.
- This does make a difference when I'm browsing ten-megapixel RAW files in Lightroom -- each file is 10 MB, so that's about 16ms to do the data transfer on a single drive, 8ms for the Raid-0. That does actually make a difference if I'm flipping between files a lot.
- Failure rate for the drives on Raid-0 might be double, but if the motherboard fails you might not be able to rebuild the array on a different mobo. My P5Q board died and is now back at the manufacturer for repair/replacement, I've yet to see if configuring an identical mobo will recover my Raid array. If I had used the drives in a "boring old" OS/Data split, there would be no chance I'd lost data. As it is I just have to cross my fingers.

If I have lost data, I'm going back to a normal OS/programs on drive 1, data on drive 2 setup. If I haven't lost the data, I'm adding an in-machine backup drive so I have no excuse for not doing backups (my backup is a week out of date cos I couldn't get my eSATA drive going, the day before the mobo died).

just having the RAID array does not increase the risk of data loss... how can it it's just software omg.. it depends on the quality of the drives you're using

No, failure rate for each drive is identical to the failure rate for those drives when they're not in a RAID array. The risk of data loss is doubled in RAID 0.

You can recover the data from a RAID 0 using Runtime.org's RAID Reconstructor and GetDataBack for NTFS. You can do this even if you don't have a compatible controller.

Yes, RAID 0 most certainly increases the chance of data loss (very nearly doubles it for a 2-drive RAID 0). It is because all data on both drives is lost even if only one drive fails.

Heya,

I've been a RAID0 user for nearly a decade. I've had a drive fail (after 6 years of use) on an array. That array had to be rebuilt. But the data was backed up on a separate drive. After using RAID0, I simply can't go back to using a single 7200rpm drive, or worse yet, those 4200rpm laptop drives. It's huge how much of a feel difference and real-world difference you get. A lot of the 10k rpm drives are well worth their salt and give great performance for that single drive approach, but they're simply not cost effective in my eyes. I'd rather get cheaper but very solid drives and RAID0 them into a larger, faster beast. Why spend hundreds on 10k rpm drives, when you can spend way less on way more storage and more performance? The risk is not as great as it seems to be labeled. And anyone with any sense will be fine if a failure does occur. It's like having a spare in your care; will you drive without one? Would you drive cross-state with your fuel gauge hovering the "E" and be surprised if it breaks down? A little common sense goes a long way here. For the casual user, you simply do not need to worry about losing data. Back up what's important. Unless your business relies on you having 99% uptime, availability, and insane amounts of storage with lots of access to it, you simply don't need to worry about redundancy. Just the little bit of time it takes to reinstall your OS and whatever game/app you were plowing through. As for the OP, this is the case, since he's just playing with some Raptors.

Absolutely go RAID. You're not going to kill your Raptors or find yourself in some really risky situation.

Do seconds matter? When you use your PC daily and for long hours, yes, the slightest comforts and snappiness makes a huge difference. I for one cannot stand it if my PC grinds as it can't keep up with my multitasking. And while RAID will not neccessarily fix that, it is a piece of the puzzle in getting as much as I can to perform faster. Lots of users neglect that as fast as their system is, their drive only goes so fast and is a bottleneck for lots of things.

Very best,