Speed RAID 0 vs RAID 1

[mattbooty]

Hello, I have a PC I built about 4 years ago, the motherboard supports RAID 0 and 1. When I built I put 2 80GB in a RAID 0 Stripe. Now I've got it full with lots of data that I'm afraid of losing. I need more storage one way or another so I'm picking up a pair of 500GB drives but I'm considering putting them in RAID 1. I know RAID 1 is slower than RAID 0, but how much will I notice the speed? I do a lot of gaming for sure, but outside of load times between levels, how much will this affect my fps? Is it that big of a difference?

I have an external HD that I keep my really important stuff backed up on, but its only 250 so its going to quickly get to the point where it won't be enough when I get these 500 GB drives.

Any help will be appreciated.

 

[masteraleph]

RAID 1 is essentially the same speed as a single hard drive, so if a single drive is too slow for you, then RAID 1 is not the answer. I see that you've got an external drive- keep that up, as it will protect you from viruses, other sources of corruption and the possibility of the raid controller failing.

 

[mattbooty]

Ah, thats fine then. I was under the impression that RAID 1 could perform slower than a single drive do to the mirroring operations.

 

[Captante]

RAID 1 can actually provide slightly faster read times but slightly slower writes then a single drive does, in addition it will cause a bit more CPU overhead when using a software-based controller.

RAID 0 is faster then either one, but the speed gain is at most 5-10% in modern PC's & isn't worth the greater chance of drive failure IMO.

 

[Idontcare]

Split the difference and do Raid 0+1, or Raid 5 if you want to get serious about performance and data safety.

 

[nweaver]

raid5 is not a decent option for an average home user. Many setups (especially low end ones) yield speeds slower then a single drive for some operations.

 

[mattbooty]

Thanks for all the suggestions. My mobo does support 0 and 1 so it will not be a software based solution. I use RAID 5 in my servers, but even if my mobo supported it, I understand that to truly get decent performance on RAID 5 you need a dedicated RAID controller, although I could be mistaken there.

You all basically confirmed my assumptions that the speed difference is not big enough to turn me off of RAID 1. I'm too concerned about data loss, and even though I do back up regularly, I'm more concerned about HD failure than I am viruses or anything else, so it'll be nice if a drive fails to just yank it out and throw in another one (and my new drives have seagate 5 year warranty so I should be able to get a failed one replaced free).

Thanks!!!

 

[RebateMonger]

Yeah, it sounds like RAID 1 would be a good thing for you, then. It's nice to not have to rebuild a PC when a single drive fails. Mirroring doesn't take much CPU time, even when done in software.

 

[Zepper]

Most integrated RAID (PATA or SATA) is software based RAID. The software is in the RAID BIOS and drivers. Hardware RAID generally has a dedicated processor and memory on the controller. RAID by itself is not an adequate backup plan. In the best of situations, it will get you back up quickly. On the worst occasions, you will still need a separate backup to get running again.

.bh.

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: Zepper
Most integrated RAID (PATA or SATA) is software based RAID. The software is in the RAID BIOS and drivers. Hardware RAID generally has a dedicated processor and memory on the controller. RAID by itself is not an adequate backup plan. In the best of situations, it will get you back up quickly. On the worst occasions, you will still need a separate backup to get running again.

.bh.

I just found this out myself. Research the RAID controller you use before anything else. RAID0 isn't worth it unless you have true RAID hardware and the money to do it with.

 

[cbayadmin]

Do raid 1 for data redundancy. If you need speed, bump the drives up to the 10,000 rpm variety instead of the usual 7,200 or heaven forbid the dog slow laptop speed of 5,400.

Raid 1 is not backup, it's data redundancy and it's common for many small businesses to use this method. Carve the drives into at least 2 partitions or better yet 3 . make one 20-40 gigs for the O/S and apps, make another one that is 20-40 gigs and call it 'rescue". make a 3rd partition with the balance of the drive space and call it "Data"

Once the OS partition is up and running smooth, use cloning software, 'Ghost" , Acronis, whatever your favorite is, and image that partition and send it over to the "rescue" partition. If for any reason the OS gets corrupted, you can just overwrite it with the image you have on rescue partition. It's the same thing as the dell or gateway rescue partition that comes stock on their machines, but you have your own perfectly configured setup on there instead of their trialware laden, non-configured one.

Now send another cloned image of the OS to an external USB drive just in case.

use a freeware or shareware file backup program to transfer the valuables in you DATA partition to the USB drive nightly. Send another copy of that stuff to a shared folder on another machine (old PIII ?) on your network nightly as well.

Now you've got it all, Data Redudancy via the Raid 1, speed via the faster drives, a 10 minute emergency restore image of the OS and Apps on the restore partition, a spare copy of the OS and apps on the USB, Data backed up on the USB and across the network.