• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

DUAL SATA HD's--Do they HAVE to be RAID????

J

joanneL2

Member
Hi all and thanks in advance for any insight on this one. I have two 250 SATA drives going into my new 64-bit Shuttle. Do they HAVE to installed as RAID (because I don't want Raid)??? I just want multiple drives.

Best to everybody in the forum...

Jo Anne
 
Thanks. Excellent! That's precisely the answer I wanted because I truly do not like Raid nor do I see the attraction to it.
 
Agreed. RAID has no purpose in my life (although having it on the MB of ONE of my computers allows for more than two hard drives...but that's all it's good for in my humble opinion)!
 
My Abit KW7 BIOS gives you the choice of setting up the SATA controllers as IDE or RAID - very easy. Once you make that choice, there may be other options. I have no SATA yet.
.bh.
 
Raid is AWSOME. I have 2 western digital 120gb/8mb cache drives with SATA adapters in Raid 0 mode connected to my asus kv8 MB through the VIA south bridge (no PCI bottle neck) and its simply awsome! HD performance is rediculously fast!
 
I'd only run raid to run raid 1 or 5+1 where you get data protection and in the last case striping.
It is kinda cool to think you can load up all your family pics and video without having to back them all up to DVD and feel safe.
RAID offers that.
SATA is awesome in that it offers hot swapability. If you lose a HD just toss int he repalcement and vloia, it rebuilds the data on the damaged drive.

 
All is 100% correct to what they said. However, RAID 5 (arguably the best general purpose raid) runs a decent amount of money because the amount of drives you need.

You need a minimum of three drives, and assuming they are all the same time, it will be at about 67% efficency (IE. 3 100Gig drives gives you 200 gigs of storage). Albeit efficeny goes up with the more drives you have, but so does price. Unless you NEED this, I wouldn't bother. Anand has shown how the average desktop user gains zero to minimal for a RAID setup.
 
Originally posted by: fixxxer0
All is 100% correct to what they said. However, RAID 5 (arguably the best general purpose raid) runs a decent amount of money because the amount of drives you need.

You need a minimum of three drives, and assuming they are all the same time, it will be at about 67% efficency (IE. 3 100Gig drives gives you 200 gigs of storage). Albeit efficeny goes up with the more drives you have, but so does price. Unless you NEED this, I wouldn't bother. Anand has shown how the average desktop user gains zero to minimal for a RAID setup.
Click to expand...

And so goes the RAID debate - I've found RAID to be excellent. I run a RAID 5 setup on my second PC, which is used for video editing and file backup. It uses 4 drives and a Promise SX4000 controller, so it is not cheap. But the performance is excellent - sustained read speeds (not just burst speeds) of 100MB/sec. To my knowledge, no single drive on the market can do that, except maybe some high-speed SCSI drives.
But, it is expensive, and not for everyone. My main system doesn't use RAID; I just don't want to put up the money for 2 RAID 5 setups, and it just isn't worth it anyway.
RAID 0 - cheaper, but not worth the risk.
RAID 1 - simple solution too, but inefficient - half your space is lost for redundancy
RAID 5 - uses a more expensive controller, but it combines good performance with redundancy
 
I'm going RAID5 soon, I'll probably grab the BroadcomRAIDCore BC4452 GamePC just reviewed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top