Is RAID 0 worth it on a home computer?

[JEDIYoda]

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.
Not true at all!!
Statistically speaking.....dude #1 only needs to back up his critical data on a regular basis to a seperate drive .
Just becuase dude #1 would lose all data on both drives does not mean he would havwe to backup his data twice as much...
hmmmm

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!

 

[Saku]

I think you will be asking for trouble if you don't supplement your Raid0 with a backup drive. I was running Windows on a single WD drive and happened upon two 160GB Seagate drives that were of the same specs, so I decided to try out Raid0 and I am glad I did. I have def. noticed better performance from them compared to running Windows on a single drive.

Sure I would probably get a bit more security by running them separately but the boost in performance is more important to me. I think as long as you make a habit of backing up your data the Raid0 setup will be more than worth it given the price of Raptors these days. I would of had to pay twice the amount I paid for the Seagates for half the storage space in a Raptor.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.
Not true at all!!
Statistically speaking.....dude #1 only needs to back up his critical data on a regular basis to a seperate drive .
Just becuase dude #1 would lose all data on both drives does not mean he would havwe to backup his data twice as much...
hmmmm

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!

Let's say I accumulate critical data at a rate of 100MB per week. One week, I may accumulate no data at all. One week, I may accumulate 1GB of data. But, you can find an average.

I am willing to lose no more than 100MB. So, on average, I backup once a week. The worst case scenario is if my drive dies just before the end the week before I backup. Then, I will only lose 100MB because I backed up my data last week.

This is all statistics and average rates. Please don't ask what if the drive dies on a week that you accumulated 10GB of data. We are talking "on average". You should increase your backup frequency during such a period of high data accumulation.

So, someone who has two hard drives and puts them in RAID 0, could lose 100MB on average in case of a drive failure under those circumstances.

Someone who has the same number of drives but uses them as two separate drives with different data distributed on them, and accumulates data at the same rate, could lose only 50MB under the same circumstances. Because he also accumulates 100MB/week and he also backs up once a week. But, on each drive, he accumulates 50MB/week.

I am talking about someone who uses both of his drives. For example, puts the emails on drive 1 but puts the Word documents on drive 2, puts the music on drive 1 but puts the pictures on drive 2 ......
I am not talking about someone who is waiting for the first drive to fill before he starts putting data on the second.

So, statistically speaking, the second guy only needs to backup his data once every 2 weeks to only lose 100MB.

That's why I said, someone with RAID 0 should backup at twice the rate. Now, if you say "but I have a third drive for backup", you should consider that the other guy can have a third drive also. We want to compare apples and apples.

 

[KoolDrew]

No.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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:

I like the people who go to the store looking at external drives. One guy says "I've had 3 WD external drives fail" and someone says "try seagate or maxtor then?" the guy says "No I'll get this one because it looks cute"

...looks cute? Not a good reason to buy anything unless it's a pet. That's just me. I prefer something to work first.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Saku
I think you will be asking for trouble if you don't supplement your Raid0 with a backup drive. I was running Windows on a single WD drive and happened upon two 160GB Seagate drives that were of the same specs, so I decided to try out Raid0 and I am glad I did. I have def. noticed better performance from them compared to running Windows on a single drive.

Sure I would probably get a bit more security by running them separately but the boost in performance is more important to me. I think as long as you make a habit of backing up your data the Raid0 setup will be more than worth it given the price of Raptors these days. I would of had to pay twice the amount I paid for the Seagates for half the storage space in a Raptor.

No doubt, you should always have some backup solution. I was simply saying that since both drives act as 1 you are only backing up once, not twice.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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.
Not true at all!!
Statistically speaking.....dude #1 only needs to back up his critical data on a regular basis to a seperate drive .
Just becuase dude #1 would lose all data on both drives does not mean he would havwe to backup his data twice as much...
hmmmm

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!

Let's say I accumulate critical data at a rate of 100MB per week. One week, I may accumulate no data at all. One week, I may accumulate 1GB of data. But, you can find an average.

I am willing to lose no more than 100MB. So, on average, I backup once a week. The worst case scenario is if my drive dies just before the end the week before I backup. Then, I will only lose 100MB because I backed up my data last week.

This is all statistics and average rates. Please don't ask what if the drive dies on a week that you accumulated 10GB of data. We are talking "on average". You should increase your backup frequency during such a period of high data accumulation.

So, someone who has two hard drives and puts them in RAID 0, could lose 100MB on average in case of a drive failure under those circumstances.

Someone who has the same number of drives but uses them as two separate drives with different data distributed on them, and accumulates data at the same rate, could lose only 50MB under the same circumstances. Because he also accumulates 100MB/week and he also backs up once a week. But, on each drive, he accumulates 50MB/week.

I am talking about someone who uses both of his drives. For example, puts the emails on drive 1 but puts the Word documents on drive 2, puts the music on drive 1 but puts the pictures on drive 2 ......
I am not talking about someone who is waiting for the first drive to fill before he starts putting data on the second.

So, statistically speaking, the second guy only needs to backup his data once every 2 weeks to only lose 100MB.

That's why I said, someone with RAID 0 should backup at twice the rate. Now, if you say "but I have a third drive for backup", you should consider that the other guy can have a third drive also. We want to compare apples and apples.

If everyone backed up their data to a seperate drive once a week, it wouldn't matter anyway. I even backup my backup to another system on my network.

 

[SGtheArtist]

IMO, if you have to purchase the drives & hardware to acquire RAID functionality then it is not worth it.

If you already have all the necessary components sitting around then go for it the only cost is the additional electricity the HDD will consume.

For the cost of investing in a RAID setup I would recommend investing in a 10k Raptor instead. The Raptor would be more responsive because of the faster access time.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If everyone backed up their data to a seperate drive once a week, it wouldn't matter anyway.

May be not to you!

I picked those numbers (backup once a week) just to show the rates for the purpose of comparing two cases. I never expected anyone to take them literally.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If everyone backed up their data to a seperate drive once a week, it wouldn't matter anyway.

May be not to you!

I picked those numbers (backup once a week) just to show the rates for the purpose of comparing two cases. I never expected anyone to take them literally.

To who then? If you just backup everything you have once in a while, maybe even once a month if all you have is like games and basic email (nothing critical to your business lets say) then it doesn't matter if you have a 1TB RAID0 or a single 40GB HDD.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
IMO, if you have to purchase the drives & hardware to acquire RAID functionality then it is not worth it.

If you already have all the necessary components sitting around then go for it the only cost is the additional electricity the HDD will consume.

For the cost of investing in a RAID setup I would recommend investing in a 10k Raptor instead. The Raptor would be more responsive because of the faster access time.

Just my $0.02.

As I said I got two 250GB WD SE16 drives for $160 out the door. It's slightly faster than a raptor thanks to RAID0 and the cheapest raptor I could find at 150GB is $210 online.

 

[SGtheArtist]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
IMO, if you have to purchase the drives & hardware to acquire RAID functionality then it is not worth it.

If you already have all the necessary components sitting around then go for it the only cost is the additional electricity the HDD will consume.

For the cost of investing in a RAID setup I would recommend investing in a 10k Raptor instead. The Raptor would be more responsive because of the faster access time.

Just my $0.02.

As I said I got two 250GB WD SE16 drives for $160 out the door. It's slightly faster than a raptor thanks to RAID0 and the cheapest raptor I could find at 150GB is $210 online.

Sorry, I missed that I was skimming the thread .

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If everyone backed up their data to a seperate drive once a week, it wouldn't matter anyway.

May be not to you!

I picked those numbers (backup once a week) just to show the rates for the purpose of comparing two cases. I never expected anyone to take them literally.

To who then? If you just backup everything you have once in a while, maybe even once a month if all you have is like games and basic email (nothing critical to your business lets say) then it doesn't matter if you have a 1TB RAID0 or a single 40GB HDD.

lol
To the same person!
The same person compares two systems for himself. He wants to know which setup is best for him. He first considers RAID 0. Then, he considers two separate drives with data distributed on them.
He has a known acceptable level of data he is willing to lose in case of a failure. Being 100MB or 1TB.

He needs to backup at twice the rate if he chooses to go RAID 0. 1MB or 1TB acceptable data loss makes no difference. What that changes is the backup frequency he needs to make. But the effect is the same on both setups.

If you accumulate 100MB/week and you are willing to lose 100MB, you have to backup once a week on RAID 0 and once every 2 weeks in the other case. If you are willing to lose 500MB, you need to backup once every 5 weeks with RAID 0 but only once every 10 weeks for the other case.

 

[Navid]

cmdrdredd,

I am not trying to convince you not to use RAID 0.
I just wanted to point out that if you lost one drive in a RAID 0 setup, you would lose the entire data, which turned out you already knew.

But, then questions came up and I tried to answer why I made the claim about the backup frequency.

Everyone has a different taste, different needs, different priorities. So, everyone makes their own choices. There is no one solution for all. In fact, I am extremely curious about RAID 0 and how much it really speeds things up and I may give it a try some day.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Navid

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If everyone backed up their data to a seperate drive once a week, it wouldn't matter anyway.

May be not to you!

I picked those numbers (backup once a week) just to show the rates for the purpose of comparing two cases. I never expected anyone to take them literally.

To who then? If you just backup everything you have once in a while, maybe even once a month if all you have is like games and basic email (nothing critical to your business lets say) then it doesn't matter if you have a 1TB RAID0 or a single 40GB HDD.

lol
To the same person!
The same person compares two systems for himself. He wants to know which setup is best for him. He first considers RAID 0. Then, he considers two separate drives with data distributed on them.
He has a known acceptable level of data he is willing to lose in case of a failure. Being 100MB or 1TB.

He needs to backup at twice the rate if he chooses to go RAID 0. 1MB or 1TB acceptable data loss makes no difference. What that changes is the backup frequency he needs to make. But the effect is the same on both setups.

If you accumulate 100MB/week and you are willing to lose 100MB, you have to backup once a week on RAID 0 and once every 2 weeks in the other case. If you are willing to lose 500MB, you need to backup once every 5 weeks with RAID 0 but only once every 10 weeks for the other case.

Again all assuming people distribute their data. I don't know about what people you have seen, buit in general the people I know put everything they download and install on the C drive and maybe drop one or 2 things on their 2nd HDD if they have one.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
IMO, if you have to purchase the drives & hardware to acquire RAID functionality then it is not worth it.

If you already have all the necessary components sitting around then go for it the only cost is the additional electricity the HDD will consume.

For the cost of investing in a RAID setup I would recommend investing in a 10k Raptor instead. The Raptor would be more responsive because of the faster access time.

Just my $0.02.

As I said I got two 250GB WD SE16 drives for $160 out the door. It's slightly faster than a raptor thanks to RAID0 and the cheapest raptor I could find at 150GB is $210 online.

slightly faster in the str dept - which doesn't mean the drive is faster for what you need.