• 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.

RAID 0

Looked there already. I just wanted some personal opinions for people. Another option I am considering is doing a 80GB boot drive and a 250GB storage drive...
 
Raid 0 is just as easy to setup as raid 1. You speak of two different sets of drives, is this for a planned build, or do you just have these drives laying around?
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
You speak of two different sets of drives, is this for a planned build, or do you just have these drives laying around?
Click to expand...

After I read his posts again I will agree that the wording is confusing. It sort of sounds like he is also considering an 80GB + 250GB partition on the 320GB array but he's short 10GB. 😛
 
John,

Hmm, I would chop it into smaller partitions than that. I tend to set all of mine at 50GBs, as long as the size of the drive(s) allow.

EDIT: Since you edited your post, mine doesn't make too much sense.
 
Originally posted by: athfbum
I mean an 80GB boot drive, and a 250GB storage drive, so 2 drives of different size.
Click to expand...

So you have a total of 4 hard drives? Use the 250 for the OS drive (partition if you want and the 160's/80 for storage.
 
I haven't found that the small speed advantage is worth it. I use raid 1, and since I'm getting ready to replace a defective member of the array, I'm very glad. I do not yet have faith in the backup programs that I have access to, and I really dislike the eternity that it takes for me to rebuild my system, along with all of it's programs, like I have done in the past.
 
I just got to thinking, and why are people so worried about drive failure when hard drives have a very low probability of failure. I've only had 1 hard drive fail on me ever, and I have owned 8 computers 😛
 
I have had several harddrive failures on just two computers, so your are lucky. But, it only takes one failure to cause alot of work, annoyance and possible loss of valuable data. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
Originally posted by: athfbum
I just got to thinking, and why are people so worried about drive failure when hard drives have a very low probability of failure. I've only had 1 hard drive fail on me ever, and I have owned 8 computers 😛
Click to expand...

because those are theoretical valus. hdds fail, it is a mechanical device that wears out over time. it is not a mtter of if but when. personally i have had a hdd from every manf fail on me, at least 1x. for the little to no gain you get with a home user with raid 0 there really is no reason to go that route. if you are going to raid, use raid 1 and have a built in backup.

after the many hours of setting up your rig, tweaking it just right, you will be glad you have a built in backup when the hdd fails with raid1.
 
Originally posted by: athfbum
why are people so worried about drive failure when hard drives have a very low probability of failure. I've only had 1 hard drive fail on me ever, and I have owned 8 computers
Click to expand...

I agree that this risk is overblown. However, with any RAID you have an increased risk of failure even without considering drive failure. The RAID implementation and its maintenance are potential points of failure. Going RAID 0 without an external backup of some sort is really just asking for trouble.

Why?

(1) The number of drives increases, increasing the probability of failure.
(2) RAID 0 has more storage capability, therefore more data could be at risk.
(3) The RAID implementation itself could fail. BIOS failure, code failure, lose RAID info on HDs. (Heard it happen.)
(4) The partition info could be lost. (Seen it happen.)


Keeping the OS + data on the same RAID array complicates setup and maintenance. Most implementations end up separating these. I'd suggest 1 drive for OS/swap/personal folders, a RAID array of some sort for programs + data, and a separate external drive for backups. This will be superior in performance and reliability to most set-ups, but of course cost more in drives.
 
It is something like whether multiengine are safer than single aircraft. Obviously, the more engines, the more likelyhood that you would have an engine failure. But the actual safety factor is determined more by the skill of the pilot to handle the situation. A good raid 1 configuration doesn't eliminate the possibility of a harddrive failure, and actually increases that factor, but it does increase the safety of data, if the administrated properly. If you have no faith in yourself, then perhaps a nonraid system is better. You do not need to be a PC guru to accomplish this, only a careful and alert operator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top