No need for RAID on a "regular" PC?

[Trente]

Taken from storagereview.com:

Most "regular PC users" do not need RAID, and the extra cost of one or more additional hard drives is usually not justified. Most individuals who set up RAID on regular PCs cannot afford hardware RAID and SCSI drives, so they use software RAID or inexpensive IDE/ATA RAID controllers. They are typically setting up RAID solely for performance reasons, and choose RAID 0. Unfortunately, RAID 0 just doesn't improve performance all that much for the way typical PCs are used; I often see gamers setting up RAID 0 systems when most games will take little advantage of it. Meanwhile, the RAID 0 array puts all of the user's data in jeopardy.

Do you guys mostly agree with this?

 

[hjo3]

It looks like he's assuming a lot. Frex:

Most individuals who set up RAID on regular PCs cannot afford hardware RAID and SCSI drives

Don't really agree with that... did this guy do a study on the income level of people who use RAID in their personal systems? Doubtful.

I'd agree that:
* Using RAID 0 setups to improve gaming performance isn't usually worth the trouble.
* Using RAID 0 instead of a single HD does increase the odds of losing data stored on that array.

 

[Yanagi]

You will hear different opinions but I will probably not run RAID at any time, except for RAID 1 under certain circumstanses. But RAID 0 is useless for me.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: hjo3
It looks like he's assuming a lot. Frex:

Most individuals who set up RAID on regular PCs cannot afford hardware RAID and SCSI drives

Don't really agree with that... did this guy do a study on the income level of people who use RAID in their personal systems? Doubtful.

I'd agree that:
* Using RAID 0 setups to improve gaming performance isn't usually worth the trouble.
* Using RAID 0 instead of a single HD does increase the odds of losing data stored on that array.

The vast majority of people using RAID on these boards are using crappy built in controllers, those are probably not what he meant by "hardware controllers".

How many people AT do you think are using proper hardware(as in 3Ware Escalades for example) controllers? I bet for everyone that does, there are 50 that use the crappy "soft hardware" kind.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Trente
Taken from storagereview.com:

Most "regular PC users" do not need RAID, and the extra cost of one or more additional hard drives is usually not justified. Most individuals who set up RAID on regular PCs cannot afford hardware RAID and SCSI drives, so they use software RAID or inexpensive IDE/ATA RAID controllers. They are typically setting up RAID solely for performance reasons, and choose RAID 0. Unfortunately, RAID 0 just doesn't improve performance all that much for the way typical PCs are used; I often see gamers setting up RAID 0 systems when most games will take little advantage of it. Meanwhile, the RAID 0 array puts all of the user's data in jeopardy.

Do you guys mostly agree with this?

-Most do not need RAID: yes. The cost is prohibitive, yes.
-Most people who set up RAID on regular PCs cannot afford hardware RAID and SCSI drives? Used RAID controllers and used SCSI drives are a very popular option, and so far using software RAID, would be worth it! Anything but software RAID 1 is just too much hassle. Hardware RAID goes in and works.
-Peformance reasons? That's not RAID, that's RAID 0, sometimes called AID. 0+1/10 offers performance, but minimal and at a pretty high cost compared to just buying different drives. Oh, and it's not RAID.
-Doesn't improve typical peformance: this is true. Speedy drives with fast seek times will improve performance more than RAID 0, unless you're on one of those speedy drives already. I'm also practically salivating to see more NCQ SATA benches.
-Puts data in jeapordy: yes, it does. Automated backups are your friend. Also, if you're using SCSI, just go RAID 5. The performance difference is quite minimal with real hardware RAID, and you get 1 drive of redundancy.