I hear it talked about all the time yet I have never looked into it. What is so great about it for the average user(me)?
Someone give me the basics on RAID
- Thread starter michaels
- Start date
Quicker write/seek time because it splits the data between the hard drives.
If you're saving file A it writes half of it on one hard drive and the other half on the other.
It can also be set to mirror all data onto both hard drives. This is good if you're leery of hard drive failures.
If you're saving file A it writes half of it on one hard drive and the other half on the other.
It can also be set to mirror all data onto both hard drives. This is good if you're leery of hard drive failures.
There's many different levels of RAID available. Most endusers look at either:
RAID 0
RAID 1
RAID 0 is striping. It will take your two say, 250 gig drives, and show them as one 500 gig drive. This is designed for performance, but for the small increase in performance you also have an increased risk. If one drive goes out, there goes your whole array.
RAID 1 is mirroring. It will take your two 250 gig drives, and show them as one 250 gig drive. This is designed for redundancy. Whatever is on one drive, is also written on the other. Obviously this gives you more reliablity.
Personally I don't recommend RAID 0, the small performance increase is not worth the added risk. RAID 1 is a decent option for some, IMO, especially if you're bad about backing up your valuable info.
RAID 0
RAID 1
RAID 0 is striping. It will take your two say, 250 gig drives, and show them as one 500 gig drive. This is designed for performance, but for the small increase in performance you also have an increased risk. If one drive goes out, there goes your whole array.
RAID 1 is mirroring. It will take your two 250 gig drives, and show them as one 250 gig drive. This is designed for redundancy. Whatever is on one drive, is also written on the other. Obviously this gives you more reliablity.
Personally I don't recommend RAID 0, the small performance increase is not worth the added risk. RAID 1 is a decent option for some, IMO, especially if you're bad about backing up your valuable info.
RebateMonger
Elite Member
- Dec 24, 2005
- 11,586
- 0
- 0
IMO the "average user" is generally better off sticking with simple single drives (one or two).
The "enthusiast" can take the time to read about the plethora of options and issues, and try a few, and decide for himself/herself; taking advice where appropriate -- towards solving a specific problem.
If you don't have a specific storage-related problem to solve, then RAID might just be a solution looking for a problem. Of course, this solution has its own problems.. so what do you gain? A problem, not a solution.
The "enthusiast" can take the time to read about the plethora of options and issues, and try a few, and decide for himself/herself; taking advice where appropriate -- towards solving a specific problem.
If you don't have a specific storage-related problem to solve, then RAID might just be a solution looking for a problem. Of course, this solution has its own problems.. so what do you gain? A problem, not a solution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter