Is RAID 0 worth it on a home computer?

[Fuzzy33]

I would appreciate your advice on whether to get RAID 0 in my next home computer.

It would be a medium priced desktop that I would have custom built by a computer store. I plan to keep it 4 years.

It would not be used for gaming and would probably not be overclocked. The most demanding applications would be frequent photo editing and infrequent home video editing. It would also be used for browsing a large number of photos

It would be a Core 2 Duo E6400 or Athlon X2 4800+ or 5000+, with 2 gigs RAM, a single 256 MB GPU, and about 250 GB of available hard drive space. In addition, I would keep an existing external hard drive for automated backups. I will upgrade to a 32 bit Windows Vista Premium with Aero in the spring.

The reason I am considering two drives in a RAID 0 setup is that I find the booting up and image browsing to be the slowest part of the computer experience. Yet, the latest technologies like dual CPU's, dual channel memory and dual GPU's do not really address this.

However, I know that RAID 0 is rare on home computers. The computer builder at the store thought is was a silly idea. I realize that the initial cost of the hard drives would be at least double, the failure rate would be double, and so would be the replacement cost.

Also, the slowness of my existing computer (WinXP Home, Pentium 4, 1.6 GHz, 80 gig HDD, 256 MB RAM) is probably explained in part by the fact that its registry has never been optimized, WinXP has never been reinstalled, and there are probably too many programs that start up automatically. In addition, I have Computer Associates anti-virus, Zone Alarm free firewall, and Windows Defender operating full time in the background. I occasionally clean up my temp files, delete thumbs.dat files and defragment my drive.

Would a RAID 0 on two drives noticeably speed up booting and exploring thumbnails and folders? Are there better ways to speed things up? What do you think?

Fuzzy33

 

[KayKay]

I dont think it's really worth it.

There is a noticable performance in unzipping, unrar'ing lots of files, copying/moving deleting, viewing folders with lots of thumbs etc.

but, i think coming from your existing computer, any current-generation harddrive will give you a beautiful increase in performance.

like when i jumped from an 80 GB IDE drive made in 2002, to a 200 GB 8 MB SATA drive, it was huge, so if you were to jump to say a 7200.10 SATA-II with 16 MB cache (which also has the highest platter density amongst 7200 rpm drives), you're gonna notice a good difference.

Anyway, if you have the money, and don't care about losing data on the drive if a drive dies, then go right ahead

 

[cmdrdredd]

I did it because WD drivers were dirt cheap really and for less than the price of a 150GB Raptor I got 2x 250GB 7200RPM WD drives and ran them in RAID0.

 

[Navid]

I can imagine if you run an application that reads from and writes to the hard drive most of the time, you will benefit from RAID0.

Either way, the main price to pay is that you have to worry about backing up your data twice because you are doubling the probability of losing your data due to hard drive failure by going to RAID0!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid
I can imagine if you run an application that reads from and writes to the hard drive most of the time, you will benefit from RAID0.

Either way, the main price to pay is that you have to worry about backing up your data twice because you are doubling the probability of losing your data due to hard drive failure by going to RAID0!

Only 1 backup because RAID makes the drives act as 1 large partition. Windows only sees 1 drive (even though there are 2 physical disks) so you are only backing up one partition. You can use some tools to find which drive is faulty and replace it reformat and put your ghost image (if you use ghost) back on the RAID again.

 

[FreedomGUNDAM]

tried RAID 0 a while back and didn't find the results worth the additional cost. I abandoned my RAID 0 experiment after 6 months

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Navid
I can imagine if you run an application that reads from and writes to the hard drive most of the time, you will benefit from RAID0.

Either way, the main price to pay is that you have to worry about backing up your data twice because you are doubling the probability of losing your data due to hard drive failure by going to RAID0!

Only 1 backup because RAID makes the drives act as 1 large partition. Windows only sees 1 drive (even though there are 2 physical disks) so you are only backing up one partition. You can use some tools to find which drive is faulty and replace it reformat and put your ghost image (if you use ghost) back on the RAID again.

I meant the probability of failure is doubled. If either one of the drives fails, the entire data will be gone even though one drive is still functional.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Navid
I can imagine if you run an application that reads from and writes to the hard drive most of the time, you will benefit from RAID0.

Either way, the main price to pay is that you have to worry about backing up your data twice because you are doubling the probability of losing your data due to hard drive failure by going to RAID0!

Only 1 backup because RAID makes the drives act as 1 large partition. Windows only sees 1 drive (even though there are 2 physical disks) so you are only backing up one partition. You can use some tools to find which drive is faulty and replace it reformat and put your ghost image (if you use ghost) back on the RAID again.

I meant the probability of failure is doubled. If either one of the drives fails, the entire data will be gone even though one drive is still functional.

You said "...think about backing up your data twice" so I assumed you mean using 2 backups.

Personally I ghost my system once a week. Usually when I go to work on some day I start it and let it finish while I'm gone.

 

[Navid]

Let's think about it this way:
Dude # 1 has 2 320GB hard drives. He sets them up in RAID0.
Dude # 2 has 2 320GB hard drives. He uses them as two separate hard drives (no RAID).

After 6 months, each of them has stored a total of 200GB on his file system.
At this point, each of the dues loses one drive due to hardware failure.
Dude # 1 loses all of the 200GB.
Dude # 2 only loses the data that is stored on the drive that failed. The data on his other drive is safe. Statistically speaking, he only loses 100GB.

So, if dude #1 wants to be protected as much as dude number 2, statistically speaking, he has to backup his data twice as many times as dude number 2.

When dude number 1 says that he backs up his data and he has nothing to worry about, he ignores that dude number 2 backs up his data too!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid
Let's think about it this way:
Dude # 1 has 2 320GB hard drives. He sets them up in RAID0.
Dude # 2 has 2 320GB hard drives. He uses them as two separate hard drives (no RAID).

After 6 months, each of them has stored a total of 200GB on his file system.
At this point, each of the dues loses one drive due to hardware failure.
Dude # 1 loses all of the 200GB.
Dude # 2 only loses the data that is stored on the drive that failed. The data on his other drive is safe. Statistically speaking, he only loses 100GB.

So, if dude #1 wants to be protected as much as dude number 2, statistically speaking, he has to backup his data twice as many times as dude number 2.

When dude number 1 says that he backs up his data and he has nothing to worry about, he ignores that dude number 2 backs up his data too!

But at the same time most people install everything (apps, games, and downloads) on the C drive by default. Generally speaking you don't find alot of people that seperate everything.

Also you forget that the 2nd user in your example needs to backup 2 drives with tyhat setup. You can't ignore the fact that your backup may fail and you have no backup of that drive mentioned. As it is... RAID0 user basexd on your example has to backup one partition to either another HDD (internal or external), a network storage device, a DVD, or some other removable device.

So again, RAID0 users do not backup data 2 times. There's only one partition so you only backup that data. Not each drive individually. Since in a RAID0 if you lose 1 drive you lose the entire partition data and have to rebuild the RAID and start over anyway.

 

[Fuzzy33]

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

Fuzzy33

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Navid
Let's think about it this way:
Dude # 1 has 2 320GB hard drives. He sets them up in RAID0.
Dude # 2 has 2 320GB hard drives. He uses them as two separate hard drives (no RAID).

After 6 months, each of them has stored a total of 200GB on his file system.
At this point, each of the dues loses one drive due to hardware failure.
Dude # 1 loses all of the 200GB.
Dude # 2 only loses the data that is stored on the drive that failed. The data on his other drive is safe. Statistically speaking, he only loses 100GB.

So, if dude #1 wants to be protected as much as dude number 2, statistically speaking, he has to backup his data twice as many times as dude number 2.

When dude number 1 says that he backs up his data and he has nothing to worry about, he ignores that dude number 2 backs up his data too!

But at the same time most people install everything (apps, games, and downloads) on the C drive by default. Generally speaking you don't find alot of people that seperate everything.

Also you forget that the 2nd user in your example needs to backup 2 drives with tyhat setup. You can't ignore the fact that your backup may fail and you have no backup of that drive mentioned. As it is... RAID0 user basexd on your example has to backup one partition to either another HDD (internal or external), a network storage device, a DVD, or some other removable device.

So again, RAID0 users do not backup data 2 times. There's only one partition so you only backup that data. Not each drive individually. Since in a RAID0 if you lose 1 drive you lose the entire partition data and have to rebuild the RAID and start over anyway.

I'm sorry that I fail to get my point across.
At the end of the day, it is your data and you make the call.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Navid
Let's think about it this way:
Dude # 1 has 2 320GB hard drives. He sets them up in RAID0.
Dude # 2 has 2 320GB hard drives. He uses them as two separate hard drives (no RAID).

After 6 months, each of them has stored a total of 200GB on his file system.
At this point, each of the dues loses one drive due to hardware failure.
Dude # 1 loses all of the 200GB.
Dude # 2 only loses the data that is stored on the drive that failed. The data on his other drive is safe. Statistically speaking, he only loses 100GB.

So, if dude #1 wants to be protected as much as dude number 2, statistically speaking, he has to backup his data twice as many times as dude number 2.

When dude number 1 says that he backs up his data and he has nothing to worry about, he ignores that dude number 2 backs up his data too!

this sounds good in theory but you would never know what hdd you would lose so either way they are probably both screwed. for all you know dude 2 only has 200GB of data and all of his data is on the hdd that failed. i don't know any people that actually split the data evenly across drives, do you?

back on topic - op - if you raid0 the just make sure you have another hdd there that is the combined size of your raid array, buy acronis true image and have it image your array 1-2x weekly. acronis has a scheduler so you don't forget.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Navid
Let's think about it this way:
Dude # 1 has 2 320GB hard drives. He sets them up in RAID0.
Dude # 2 has 2 320GB hard drives. He uses them as two separate hard drives (no RAID).

After 6 months, each of them has stored a total of 200GB on his file system.
At this point, each of the dues loses one drive due to hardware failure.
Dude # 1 loses all of the 200GB.
Dude # 2 only loses the data that is stored on the drive that failed. The data on his other drive is safe. Statistically speaking, he only loses 100GB.

So, if dude #1 wants to be protected as much as dude number 2, statistically speaking, he has to backup his data twice as many times as dude number 2.

When dude number 1 says that he backs up his data and he has nothing to worry about, he ignores that dude number 2 backs up his data too!

But at the same time most people install everything (apps, games, and downloads) on the C drive by default. Generally speaking you don't find alot of people that seperate everything.

Also you forget that the 2nd user in your example needs to backup 2 drives with tyhat setup. You can't ignore the fact that your backup may fail and you have no backup of that drive mentioned. As it is... RAID0 user basexd on your example has to backup one partition to either another HDD (internal or external), a network storage device, a DVD, or some other removable device.

So again, RAID0 users do not backup data 2 times. There's only one partition so you only backup that data. Not each drive individually. Since in a RAID0 if you lose 1 drive you lose the entire partition data and have to rebuild the RAID and start over anyway.

I'm sorry that I fail to get my point across.
At the end of the day, it is your data and you make the call.

It's simply that you don't understand that in a RAID0 there is only 1 partition you need to backup. You don't have to backup each individual physical disk since you cannot pick what data is on which drive, it basically makes say 2x 150GB drives a single 300GB drive.

In essence you backup a partition and not an entire physical disk.

 

[Navid]

I am aware that in RAID 0, effectively there is only one drive.
But, the probability of data loss is twice (if you have two drives in RAID 0).
That's all I wanted to point out.

You will need a third drive or DVDs for backup in RAID 0.
But, if you use one drive to backup the other (non RAID 0), you will not need a third drive.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: bob4432
this sounds good in theory but you would never know what hdd you would lose so either way they are probably both screwed. for all you know dude 2 only has 200GB of data and all of his data is on the hdd that failed. i don't know any people that actually split the data evenly across drives, do you?

If you want to have all your data on one drive and nothing on the other, you have made a wrong choice somewhere along the way!
I get two drives because I want to store the data backup on the other drive. I also store images of my Windows partition on the other hard drive. That is the only reason for me to have two drives. So, if one of my drives fails, I will have my data restored from the other.

 

[hennethannun]

RAID 0 is really ONLY worth it in a home computer. business environments have to be concerned with data survivability, and RAID 0 actually DECREASES survivability (unlike every other raid cofiguration out there).

RAID O is just a performance booster, and is therefore only worth it for enthusiasts who demand that extra dash of performance.

RAID 1 on the other hand, is generally a better idea for corporate settings than for home users (although i definitely don't want to suggest than RAID 1 is useless for home users, it is just that on the whole, fewer home users need it)

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: hennethannun
RAID 0 is really ONLY worth it in a home computer. business environments have to be concerned with data survivability, and RAID 0 actually DECREASES survivability (unlike every other raid cofiguration out there).

RAID O is just a performance booster, and is therefore only worth it for enthusiasts who demand that extra dash of performance.

RAID 1 on the other hand, is generally a better idea for corporate settings than for home users (although i definitely don't want to suggest than RAID 1 is useless for home users, it is just that on the whole, fewer home users need it)

Really, if you are going to be running RAID, a RAID 5 array with 4 or 5 disks has comparable performance of a 2 disk RAID array, if not better. So basically, if you are going to do something, do it right.

 

[Howard]

It's worth it if 1) you can do it for free and 2) you already perform regular backups.

 

[0roo0roo]

raid 0 isn't worth the increase in paranoia it would create. money better spent mirroring data.

as for browsing images, what do youuse? windows explorer? a desktop search tool like google desktop or copernic? might depend on how efficient the program is at such things. dual core should be fast enough for such stuff. is osx better at doing such things? its gui is 3d accelerated or something

 

[hennethannun]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: hennethannun
RAID 0 is really ONLY worth it in a home computer. business environments have to be concerned with data survivability, and RAID 0 actually DECREASES survivability (unlike every other raid cofiguration out there).

RAID O is just a performance booster, and is therefore only worth it for enthusiasts who demand that extra dash of performance.

RAID 1 on the other hand, is generally a better idea for corporate settings than for home users (although i definitely don't want to suggest than RAID 1 is useless for home users, it is just that on the whole, fewer home users need it)

Really, if you are going to be running RAID, a RAID 5 array with 4 or 5 disks has comparable performance of a 2 disk RAID array, if not better. So basically, if you are going to do something, do it right.

correct.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the OP SHOULD use RAID 0. personally, I don't think RAID 0 is ever worth it. i just meant that i think RAID 0 is really only useful when all you care about is performance, and that tends to mean the home enthusiast segment.

if you really care about data redundancy, then a serious RAID array will improve performance and data survivability. the only drawback is cost.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Howard
It's worth it if 1) you can do it for free and 2) you already perform regular backups.

That's why I did it, well not because it was free. Basically I had a 120GB Seagate drive and one backup drive. I was going to buy a new HDD, ghost it over, and use that as my startup drive. Then I would take the Seagate and use it in a 2nd system that needed a HDD. I was going to get a raptor, but even a 150GB Raptor was over $200 at the lowest I could find. So I got 2 250GB WD Caviar SE16 drives for $80 each this past week from BestBuy while the sale was still on. This was cheaper per drive than I could find them online after shipping and both drives together were less than a single raptor. So I run them in a RAID0. It's faster than a single raptor in everything except access time since they still only spin at 7200RPM.

I also backup once a week.

 

[amdskip]

I ran 2 Seagate 160gb drives in a raid 0 array for a couple years and it was a very solid setup. I actually miss that setup. I had another drive for storage and it just worked out great for me.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I did it because WD drivers were dirt cheap really and for less than the price of a 150GB Raptor I got 2x 250GB 7200RPM WD drives and ran them in RAID0.

I did it for the same reason!

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: bob4432
this sounds good in theory but you would never know what hdd you would lose so either way they are probably both screwed. for all you know dude 2 only has 200GB of data and all of his data is on the hdd that failed. i don't know any people that actually split the data evenly across drives, do you?

If you want to have all your data on one drive and nothing on the other, you have made a wrong choice somewhere along the way!
I get two drives because I want to store the data backup on the other drive. I also store images of my Windows partition on the other hard drive. That is the only reason for me to have two drives. So, if one of my drives fails, I will have my data restored from the other.

i am not saying that is what i do, but you put up a hypothetical and you need to remember that some people are not too bright and might put all of their data on one hdd even if they have 2, wait for it to fiil up then move on to the second. you hang around here too much and think the general population knows 1/100 of what we do, but they don't. not that i am saying we know everything but have you ever gone to a computer store and listened to some of the question the sales people get asked? i do it sometimes just for fun, what is frightening is that the "techs" don't know the answers...:shocked: