One single 80GB hard drive, or two 40GB drives in RAID-0?

[NFS4]

I've asked my parents to get me a GC to Best Buy for Christmas, so I'm looking to upgrade my storage subsystem. I was wondering, which would offer more pratical "real world" speed benefits: a single 80GB, 7200RPM ATA100 hard drive or two 40GB, 7200RPM ATA100 hard drives in RAID-0 from the same family??

BTW, my current hard drive is a Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 60, 30GB, 7200RPM ATA100

 

[jacklutz]

What size files do you work with? Movie editing, etc. or nothing intensive?

 

[NFS4]

<< What size files do you work with? Movie editing, etc. or nothing intensive? >>


Some DVD ripping, mostly just regular desktop activity (surfing, word processing, games, etc.)

 

[RGN]

I had to make that same decision. I went with two 40's in raid-0. For me its only for video editing/temporary storage, so if one craps out it will not matter. Read some of the reviews at storagereview.com.

 

[RGN]

If its your main drive, remember that if one craps ot you still loose all your data. I seem to remember a thread that it was debated hotly that raid 0 doubles you chances of data loss.

 

[NFS4]

<< If its your main drive, remember that if one craps ot you still loose all your data. I seem to remember a thread that it was debated hotly that raid 0 doubles you chances of data loss. >>


What does it matter. If you're using a single drive and it craps out, then your SOL.

If you're using two drives in RAID-0 and one craps out then you're SOL...doesn't seem that much difference to me, and I've never had a hard drive go bad before so I'm not that worried about it.

 

[RGN]

Well, drives do die...


That being said, I used to 40's in raid-0 for about a year as my main drive. It was fast... but for me the thought of one drive going bad vs one out of two was not something I could deal with.

Your choice.

 

[Xanager]

<<

<< If its your main drive, remember that if one craps ot you still loose all your data. I seem to remember a thread that it was debated hotly that raid 0 doubles you chances of data loss. >>


What does it matter. If you're using a single drive and it craps out, then your SOL.

If you're using two drives in RAID-0 and one craps out then you're SOL...doesn't seem that much difference to me, and I've never had a hard drive go bad before so I'm not that worried about it. >>



yeah, but without RAID, if one craps out you only lose half the data, the data on that one 40 gig drive. In Raid, you lose it all.

 

[NFS4]

<< yeah, but without RAID, if one craps out you only lose half the data, the data on that one 40 gig drive. In Raid, you lose it all. >>


If I'm using ONE hard drive and it goes bad, then everything is gone.
If I'm using TWO hard drives in RAID-0, and one goes bad, then everything is gone.

What's the difference? Besides, I do backups regularly so I won't be hurtin'

 

[RGN]

With Win2k or XP you can mount a drive in a directory, aka a mount point. Meaning you can use two drives like one, and reduce you chances of data loss.

 

[John]

Raid0 is yo daddy

 

[RGN]

<<

<< yeah, but without RAID, if one craps out you only lose half the data, the data on that one 40 gig drive. In Raid, you lose it all. >>


If I'm using ONE hard drive and it goes bad, then everything is gone.
If I'm using TWO hard drives in RAID-0, and one goes bad, then everything is gone.

What's the difference? Besides, I do backups regularly so I won't be hurtin' >>




ok but what about 2x40 configured individually?

 

[NFS4]

<<

<<

<< yeah, but without RAID, if one craps out you only lose half the data, the data on that one 40 gig drive. In Raid, you lose it all. >>


If I'm using ONE hard drive and it goes bad, then everything is gone.
If I'm using TWO hard drives in RAID-0, and one goes bad, then everything is gone.

What's the difference? Besides, I do backups regularly so I won't be hurtin' >>




ok but what about 2x40 configured individually? >>


I'm NOT doing that. It's either gonna be TWO 40GB's in RAID-0 or ONE 80GB like I stated in the title.

 

[Ionizer86]

Just be sure to get a new HDD after 3 years of use and move your data onto the new drive. I had a WD 3166mb (3.2gb) drive break; it refused to spin anymore and clicked when it tried to do so. It started having bad clusters after 3 years of use and it started clicking ~half a year later. I don't think RAID0 is dangerous at all bc if you do RAid1 with two new drives, they will probably go bad around the same time.

BTW, anyone still using drives that have lasted for more than 4 years?

 

[DaLeroy]

<<

<< yeah, but without RAID, if one craps out you only lose half the data, the data on that one 40 gig drive. In Raid, you lose it all. >>


If I'm using ONE hard drive and it goes bad, then everything is gone.
If I'm using TWO hard drives in RAID-0, and one goes bad, then everything is gone.

What's the difference? Besides, I do backups regularly so I won't be hurtin' >>



Difference is that there is twice as much chance as one crapping out in RAID-), since you have two drives!

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Simple probabilities my friend one drive has fifty percent less chances of failing than two drives in RAID 0. It's as simple as 1/x+1/x where 1/x is the probability of one drive failing. Of course there is also a 1/x^2 possibility that both drives will fail .

My suggestion, go with 1*80GB, doesn't seem like you need the extra speed that much and you'd be doubling your chances of a drive failure by going RAID 0.

-Ice

 

[NFS4]

<<

<<

<< yeah, but without RAID, if one craps out you only lose half the data, the data on that one 40 gig drive. In Raid, you lose it all. >>


If I'm using ONE hard drive and it goes bad, then everything is gone.
If I'm using TWO hard drives in RAID-0, and one goes bad, then everything is gone.

What's the difference? Besides, I do backups regularly so I won't be hurtin' >>



Difference is that there is twice as much chance as one crapping out in RAID-), since you have two drives! >>


Screw statistics (and I'm taking ST361 right now)!! If I'm sitting next to one chick, and her twin shows up and sits next to her, then the chances that I'd be doing both chicks at the same time doesn't double

Regardless, I'm still screwed either way if a drive goes bad. It's just a matter of when. And considering that I backup regularly and that I've never had a hard drive fail, I'm not too worried

 

[pm]

As others have said, your odds of having trouble double with two drives in RAID0. If you are making regular backups then this isn't too much of a concern. From a performance perspective there can be no doubt that RAID0 will be faster but this extra bandwidth will probably not be very noticeable unless you transfer massive files around.

Edit: since you posted the above while I was typing this.

Two examples putting what people are saying using fake numbers.
MTTF for a single IDE drive could be about 4 years. MTTF for two of these in RAID0 drive would be 2 years.

Or, your odds of a problem taking down your single HD are 1 in 20,000. With RAID0 they are 1 in 10,000.

 

[Doomguy]

RAID-0 is a waste unless you do video capturing or work with HUGE graphic files. Seek time is the most important factor is hard drive performance for people like us. I have to admit RAID is COOL though, it has a nice geek factor to it.

The decision is yours though, this is only my opinion.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

Personally I'd get one 80gig for a few simple reasons:

• 
  Easier to set up
  Not as noisy as 2 drives
  Less real-estate used (PCI/hd bays)
  Most likely cheaper
  In a year/two you wont be looking at your two 40 gigs and wishing you had bought an 80 gig so that you could add another 80 gig and RAID it for more space.

 

[randomlinh]

i don't think it's worth it... then again, i had the pleasure of trying to boot w/ win2k and get 3rd party support.. and using older maxtors (the ones that sucked for raid... dunno how they are now).

i don't think you'll see any big difference w/ what you're doing. divx ripping does use some huge files, but you don't really move em anywhere.. just encoding it. normal usage isn't going to stress the transfer rate given by raid. besides, doesn't seek time decrease? my vote goes towards one drive. raid is for if you're bored and want some braggin rights but don't you have an ipaq for that?

 

[Xanager]

Sorry I misunderstood you NFS4. I should have read a little more. I was thinking of two 40 gigs in both situations. my apologies.

 

[NFS4]

Bah, I'll just get a single drive...less hassle.

 

[RGN]

<< I'm NOT doing that. It's either gonna be TWO 40GB's in RAID-0 or ONE 80GB like I stated in the title. >>




damn, dude. that was a little bitchy. And your comment about statistics is off too. This is not necessarily statistics we are talking about, its simple logic. Have you taken that class yet?

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< I'm NOT doing that. It's either gonna be TWO 40GB's in RAID-0 or ONE 80GB like I stated in the title. >>




damn, dude. that was a little bitchy. And your comment about statistics is off too. This is not necessarily statistics we are talking about, its simple logic. Have you taken that class yet? >>


Not bitchy, just tired of repeating myself when I had already stated in the title, in the original post, and a few more times in the body of the thread

As for "simple logic," I was just stating that I'm screwed either way if a drive goes bad in EITHER configuration. And being that I've had good luck with hard drives, I wasn't really worried about that in the first place.

Since I do backups regularly, I wouldn't kill myself if one went bad.