• 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.

Is RAID 0 overrated?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well, I considered raid 1, but the reasoning I ended up sticking w/ raid 0 was this:

My system is more likely to get hosed because of a virus, a not so techy friend/family member, or windows than it is from a physical drive failure.

I mean, remember that 'redundancy' of raid 1 doesn't do sh*t for you when some prized document gets trashed. W/ Raid1, it's gone/trashed on both drives simultaneously.

I'll opt for the performance of Raid0 with the redundancy of periodic external backups.
 
Okay, I'm going to go against the grain and say I don't miss my RAID 0 setup at all. Yes it ran okay for over a year, but I don't notice anything being any slower in normal tasks. Could be the hard drives don't work well for it, but eh, don't miss it. Now you Raptor folks on the other hand, you might be onto something.
 
Originally posted by: gordanfreeman
if i ever get the money to get a decent raid controller and an extra drive, i will use RAID 0 just because it will do exactly what i want it to do for me: create one larger drive out of my two smaller ones.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of JBOD? Just a bunch of disks that is. Makes one big drive out of several smaller ones. But of course, RAID0 is more interesting, since you can expect a preformance improvement.
On the other hand, if you use WinXP or Win2000, you can create a volume that spans across different disks, I think. The thing I know for sure is that you can create raid0 arrays with WinXP. I've seen that work. But of course, you can't boot from those volumes ...

Greetz,
Fietsventje
 
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
Is RAID 0 overrated?
Click to expand...
Yes. For what most people here use it for, it is highly overrated. It of course has uses and is a benefit for some people, but for the most part it is mostly "placebo effect" or someone being "cool".

\Dan
Click to expand...

Kind of like installing NOS for your car engine, but never actually taking true advantage of it...
 
raid was developed with servers in mind in a very well maintaine environment where disks dont get bumped or have cables everywhere by just placeing the drives in a proper housing and maintaining the manufacturer specified speed and settings raid is the way to you can insure much greater data integrity than in a home machine that gets bumped mover ocd and such. so i feel if you are going to do a raid get the proper housing and server grade hardware and it should work as designed. i have had some BAD experiences with sata raid and will not use it again without the proper investment in drives and hardware.
hope i didnt make anybody upset.
have fun
 
The bottleneck in EVERYBODY'S system is the HDD... if you can increase it's performance, you increase the performance of the entire system. Now, for daily tasks like browsing, email, IM, watching movies and such, it certainly won't make a difference. But for most games, video and graphic editing, and anything else that requires a lot of loading, it will. Will you notice an increase in performance ALL the time while playing a game? No, but during instances of loading (which doesn't only happen during levels or maps, but even mid-game), it will.

I had two identical system for almost a year (COMPLETELY identical, motherboard, ram, cpu, videocard, etc), except one had a 120gb hdd, and another had RAID0 80gb drives, and the RAID0 was definitely faster.
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
While Raid 0 is overrated, you have no idea what it is.
Click to expand...

lmao

i must admit, i don't honestly think you'll ever see me running Raid0, or even Raid0+1 for that matter.

just doesnt interest me too much... but i think it could be somewhat beneficial to speed. not THAT much though.
 
I mean, remember that 'redundancy' of raid 1 doesn't do sh*t for you when some prized document gets trashed. W/ Raid1, it's gone/trashed on both drives simultaneously.
Click to expand...

guess your lucky, or upgrade too often to have old parts. i've lost many a harddrive in my day. i coulda lost far more due to those failures then any buggernig that would screw up a file on both drives in raid1.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
I mean, remember that 'redundancy' of raid 1 doesn't do sh*t for you when some prized document gets trashed. W/ Raid1, it's gone/trashed on both drives simultaneously.
Click to expand...

guess your lucky, or upgrade too often to have old parts. i've lost many a harddrive in my day. i coulda lost far more due to those failures then any buggernig that would screw up a file on both drives in raid1.
Click to expand...

a good backup strategy is better than a raid 1 imho, I make an image of my OS-tools partition every two weeks and keep three images (the partition is 5 GB, approx 2 GB compressed, so it doesnt even take in all that much space)

and then I keep daily backups of all my schoolwork, which I all keep (untill I need space, but at about 10 MB/backup it doesnt get cleaned very much, I can still look back and find the very first versions, or lost copies of work, etc)

so imho raid 1 is definetly overrated if you want to prevent between keyboard and chair problems 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top