should i set up a RAID array?

[lockmac]

Hey!

I am new to RAID and have been told that I should set up a RAID array

Currently, I just have a 200GB with 2 partitions, one with my windows and the other with all my stuff
I am thinking of buying another drive, possibly one of those cheetahs.
I would like my system to be as fast as possible at booting. I really only use it for internet and msn and stuff like that, nothing too intensive.
It is a 3500+ with an Asus A8V

Can somebody please suggest, if any, what RAID i should use. I really do not have much knowledge of it but have been told I should set it up

Thanks

 

[airfoil]

RAID requires the use of a minimum of 2 HDDs, and both should preferably be an identical pair when it comes to make/model & size. Unless you were planning to get 2 Cheetahs?

Take a look at this website to understand what RAID means and figure out which type you would like to go with.

 

[Blain]

RAID would probably slow down your boot time. For fast boots, you need to strip down your hardware to a bare minimum.

 

[dmw16]

RAID was the fastest thing going for a long time. For large file work. Things like video and sound editing can see big gains from RAID. It can also be useful if you store very important data on your computer since you can set your RAID array to mirror one drive. So essentially you have two drives with identical data on them so if one fails you havent lost anything.

But back to your question. No, RAID would do nothing for you. If you want a little bit better HD performance than look into SATA. Even that I dont think would do it for you. If you like to surf the web and say...listen to MP3s and you are getting slow downs just get a 2nd drive and put your MP3s on there.

Also, that's a lot of hardware for msn and surfing the web. Talk about a brick sh!t house

 

[bub]

"Suggest, if any, which raid I should use."

I'm a novice, but here goes: Use Stripe - Raid 0.

Get a couple SATA drives (and 2 cables) like the WD 80GB 7200RPM, 8MB buffer. 3 yr warranty, SATA, Model WD800JD @ newegg for $56 each.

Use your old hard drive for files, etc. Hopefully it's a PATA drive cause you only have 2 SATA connections (I think).

I've had a setup as such for a few months and it's quite a bit faster than a just a single drive.

I have not had any problems so far, BUT I back up all important files OFTEN just in case.

Good Luck!

 

[Jojo1971]

get a 74 gig raptor and use your 200 gb for storage...


remember when using raid-0 (2 harddrives), your chance of hard drive failure is doubled..

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

No need for RAID IMO

 

[lockmac]

Hey thanks for the replies guys.
I forgot to mention that I was planning on buying another drive, whether it be just another 200GB 7200RPM or like a cheater or something

It does appear though that I do not really have any real use for RAID

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
No need for RAID IMO

No need for RAID what?

RAID 0? I might be tempted to agree, depending on circumstances.

RAIDs 1 and 5 are both very useful for protecting important data.

RAID, in general, is a lot like SMP. If you need it, you already know why.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I really only use it for internet and msn and stuff like that, nothing too intensive.

You don't need RAID.

 

[Painman]

If you're like me and it doesn't cost anything extra to go RAID, consider whether you're willing to risk the doubled failure probability and go for it if you want. My mobo has the RAID controller functionality as a native feature, and my pair of Seagate 160s cost the same as a 300 GB drive would have at the time I did my purchasing. Data that's valuable to me is periodically written to DVD+RW regardless.

Is it faster? Slightly, when dealing with large files, as already stated.

Is it worth extra $? IMO, No.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

You don't need RAID. Instead go through Windows boot options and the like to decrease your boot time. Or just leave your machine running.
Tas.

 

[steamnputer]

Hind site being what it is I would not have set up RAID 0 for a gaming machine the preformace vs storage loss(2 80's became 149) is not that great and your data is at greater risk should one drive go out. If I have critical data(which i really don't) I would set up raid 1, with sata drives it is almost neglible the speed gains, I would buy a nice WD 10k disk or something on that order.

edit-Did anyone mention you have to wipe out your current HDD if you want it to go into the array yet? i.e start from scratch if thats your only disk.

 

[piasabird]

Raid is more trouble than it is worth.

Raid increases your chance of having a hard disk failure!

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Raid is more trouble than it is worth.

Raid increases your chance of having a hard disk failure!

How does a RAID array cause HDs to go bad? :shocked:

 

[imported_fatal]

There are a lot of ways to cut down the boot time with a few BIOS & OS changes, I would google it & you should be able to find a few articles

 

[dds14u]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Raid is more trouble than it is worth.

Raid increases your chance of having a hard disk failure!

How does a RAID array cause HDs to go bad? :shocked:

How often do hard drives go bad?...

And if you already have two hard drives it doesn't increase [physical] failure probability, just data loss probability.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Raid is more trouble than it is worth.

Raid increases your chance of having a hard disk failure!

How does a RAID array cause HDs to go bad? :shocked:

It's a statistics thing. If you've got two drives that each independently have a mean time between failure of 80,000 hours, and put them together in a manner where they depend on one another, the MTBF of the system is reduced to 40,000 hours.

That said, I don't necessairly agree with it. Mathematically, it's sound, but in a one-off environment like we use our personal computers in, it's not very telling. You've got the same chance of buying that drive that would've failed at 40,000 hours to use in a single-drive environment as you do the one that would fail at 80,000.

I think too, that RAID 0 kind of implies that the HDs have been utilized more than a normal drive would. Directly, RAID 0 doesn't cause anything to fail, but it's indicative. Kind of like drag radials on a car, the drags don't cause the car's tranny to quit, but the kind of driving you need drag radials for probably did.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: piasabird
Raid is more trouble than it is worth.

Raid increases your chance of having a hard disk failure!

How does a RAID array cause HDs to go bad? :shocked:

It's a statistics thing. If you've got two drives that each independently have a mean time between failure of 80,000 hours, and put them together in a manner where they depend on one another, the MTBF of the system is reduced to 40,000 hours.

That said, I don't necessairly agree with it. Mathematically, it's sound, but in a one-off environment like we use our personal computers in, it's not very telling. You've got the same chance of buying that drive that would've failed at 40,000 hours to use in a single-drive environment as you do the one that would fail at 80,000.

I think too, that RAID 0 kind of implies that the HDs have been utilized more than a normal drive would. Directly, RAID 0 doesn't cause anything to fail, but it's indicative. Kind of like drag radials on a car, the drags don't cause the car's tranny to quit, but the kind of driving you need drag radials for probably did.

The tire analogy is kind of odd. :shocked:
I'd imagine people here who use RAID 0 for single user desktop, aren't thrashing the HDs any more than those using a single drive. I might be able to buy that idea if they set the RAID array up for a multi-user environment.
People just love to say they have a RAID array, if they actually detect any difference or not.