I think I NEED raid

J

jblue42

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
497
Hello, being a complete RAID nub, I have a feeling I'd like to experiment.

I Have:
1 seagate 320gb (perpendicular)
Asus P5W DH
E6600
2gb crucial ballistix
X1900xtx

I want to speed up boot time, and program launch times

I don't want to buy more than 2 more HD's


Anyone have a good link to some information I should read? I've heard Raid 5 is fast, that's with 3 HD's acting as 1?

Thanks!
 
I don't think you'll notice an appreciable difference in boot or program loading times with RAID.
 
You don't need RAID. Almost no one using their computer at home for recreational purposes needs RAID. It can improve loading times for games, but that's it. It doesn't improve OS boot time much if at all.
 
In your case you will not find any advantages. You are probably thinking more in the lines of RAID 0, which in your case would give you no genuine benefit.

I would recommend of simply purchasing a faster drive such as a raptor 150.
 
Ockie said:
In your case you will not find any advantages. You are probably thinking more in the lines of RAID 0, which in your case would give you no genuine benefit.

I would recommend of simply purchasing a faster drive such as a raptor 150.
Click to expand...

Agreed. RAID can be more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. About the only RAID I recommend anymore is RAID-1 or RAID-5. I only recommend that for people interested in redundancy. BTW that isn't a substitute for a good backup solution. So I don't recommend it for that purpose like some do.
 
Dan_D said:
Agreed. RAID can be more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. About the only RAID I recommend anymore is RAID-1 or RAID-5. I only recommend that for people interested in redundancy. BTW that isn't a substitute for a good backup solution. So I don't recommend it for that purpose like some do.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Go for one Raptor 150! :D

RAID is very good at offering redundancy. Absolutely, if you have data which you can under no cirmcumstances afford to lose then RAID 5 or RAID 1 is not sufficient. But if you're just looking to vastly decrease your risk of data loss then RAID 5 or 1 is a pretty good compromise between cost and data security. Drives fail often, but the chance of two drives simultaneously failing on a RAID 5 array is not very great, especially with careful monitoring of SMART status and so on. Personally I just saved myself some effort and opted for a 3Ware 9650, expanding w/ 750GB seagates as needed :D

OP: If you're really serious about getting some hard core drive performance and have a few hundred to burn then get the 3Ware 9650 controller with two Raptor 150s in RAID 0. RAID 0 with a really good hardware RAID card is actually quite fast. On BF2 servers w/ out spawn delay you'll already be in the blackhawk by the time the rest of the nubs finally manage to spawn. Software RAID 0 is a waste of money IMHO.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816116041
 
Hvatum said:
RAID is very good at offering redundancy. Absolutely, if you have data which you can under no cirmcumstances afford to lose then RAID 5 or RAID 1 is not sufficient. But if you're just looking to vastly decrease your risk of data loss then RAID 5 or 1 is a pretty good compromise between cost and data security. Drives fail often, but the chance of two drives simultaneously failing on a RAID 5 array is not very great, especially with careful monitoring of SMART status and so on. Personally I just saved myself some effort and opted for a 3Ware 9650, expanding w/ 750GB seagates as needed :D
Click to expand...
Except for when a PSU blows up :( :mad: :eek:

But, as was said, go with a Raptor 150, or even a 74.
 
If your interested in trying, 2 drives in RAID0 will speed up your boot time and many of your heavier program launches. I typically see about a 15-20% reduction in times. All the others that say it doesn't reduce loading, what were your results when you compared a single drive to RAID0 boot times in your system?

Here's a guide to RAID0 setup.
 
You need a Raptor. Adding RAID-0 will increase your boot time some (probably not as much as the Raptor), but it will at least quadrouple your chances of losing all of the data on your hard drives. Do the following:

Raptor of any kind for booting (even the old 36GB drives are plenty fast)
Cheap sata drive for storage
USB based SATA drive that you'll use to backup data occasionally with and you'll store it off site.

If you absolutely don't want more than two drives, skip the last item I noted. Just keep your most important can't lose data with a copy on each drive. It won't give you any disaster recovery, but will protect you from a drive failure. ONLY two drives makes RAID-0 a stupid idea and anyone who advocates it to you is being irresponsible.

-RAID-0 doubles the chances of a drive failure taking ALL of your data. If either of those drives fail, ALL of your data is lost forever.
-The biggest data loss for RAID-0 is data corruption. This will especially be the case for using consumer level RAID'ing from something like nVidia on board RAID.
- These two combined give you at least 4x the chance of losing ALL of your data. At least if you use a raptor and a SATA drive, one drive failure won't make you lose everything.

If you really want to play with RAID, setup a RAID-1. You get good read speed and protection in case of a drive failure.
 
general said:
Adding RAID-0 will increase your boot time some (probably not as much as the Raptor), but it will at least quadrouple your chances of losing all of the data on your hard drives.
Click to expand...

Really? How does that happen?
 
Adding RAID-0 will DECREASE your boot time some (probably not as much as the Raptor), but it will at least quadrouple your chances of losing all of the data on your hard drives.

Sorry, typo.

I would have to have the godfather of the storage forum catch that too.
 
general said:
it will at least quadrouple your chances of losing all of the data on your hard drives.
Click to expand...

I meant this part. Why does it quadruple, rather than double, the chance of data loss? Assuming drive failures are mutually independent, P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B). So it's about double, or a little less.

Godfather, eh? I think I'll steer clear of oranges for a while...:rolleyes:
 
Oh, I don't feel so bad then.

The highest chance of data loss with something like NVRaid is array corruption. That is, the chances of this happening (and this is generally accepted) are greater than a drive failure.

Single drive
Chances of drive failure: X
No chance of RAID corruption
Overall failure rate: X

RAID-0
Chances of drive failure: 2X
Chance of RAID corruption: at least 2.00000000000001X ~2X (probably greater)
Overall chance of failure: 2X*2X = 4X or X to the power of 2
 
tuskenraider said:
If your interested in trying, 2 drives in RAID0 will speed up your boot time and many of your heavier program launches. I typically see about a 15-20% reduction in times. All the others that say it doesn't reduce loading, what were your results when you compared a single drive to RAID0 boot times in your system?

Here's a guide to RAID0 setup.
Click to expand...
Here we go again :rolleyes:
 
RAID-0
Chances of drive failure: 2X
Chance of RAID corruption: at least 2.00000000000001X ~2X (probably greater)
Overall chance of failure: 2X*2X = 4X or X to the power of 2
Click to expand...
Is that from the Fuzzy Math school of thought?
Here we go again
Click to expand...
What, you don't like that I have a positive experience of RAID0 to share?
 
general said:
You need a Raptor. Adding RAID-0 will increase your boot time some (probably not as much as the Raptor), but it will at least quadrouple your chances of losing all of the data on your hard drives. Do the following:

Raptor of any kind for booting (even the old 36GB drives are plenty fast)
Cheap sata drive for storage
USB based SATA drive that you'll use to backup data occasionally with and you'll store it off site.

If you absolutely don't want more than two drives, skip the last item I noted. Just keep your most important can't lose data with a copy on each drive. It won't give you any disaster recovery, but will protect you from a drive failure. ONLY two drives makes RAID-0 a stupid idea and anyone who advocates it to you is being irresponsible.

-RAID-0 doubles the chances of a drive failure taking ALL of your data. If either of those drives fail, ALL of your data is lost forever.
-The biggest data loss for RAID-0 is data corruption. This will especially be the case for using consumer level RAID'ing from something like nVidia on board RAID.
- These two combined give you at least 4x the chance of losing ALL of your data. At least if you use a raptor and a SATA drive, one drive failure won't make you lose everything.

If you really want to play with RAID, setup a RAID-1. You get good read speed and protection in case of a drive failure.
Click to expand...

http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=869

Check out those benchmarks, RAID 0 on a good RAID card is very fast. RAID 0 using an onboard nVidia controller is not worth the effort, really you shouldn't compare onboard RAID with real hardware RAID at all, they are in totally different leagues. It's like comparing a intramural football team with the Colts. :)

Here's a comprimise: Gett a good Hardware RAID 0 card (Eg. 3Ware 9650) and two Raptor 37GB. Then periodically back up the 74GB Raptor array to an inexpensive external 100GB drive. This way you get the increased performance of RAID 0 without sacrificing very valuable real estate on your Raptors. Putting a Raptor in a RAID 1 setup seems a bit wasteful to me, but it could make sense if you're storing important data on the same partition as your OS.
 
The math is fine. Feel free to start a thread challenging my assumption about the probability of corruption of the RAID being more likely to happen than a drive failure.
 
general said:
The highest chance of data loss with something like NVRaid is array corruption. That is, the chances of this happening (and this is generally accepted) are greater than a drive failure.
Click to expand...

Okay. But that's not the fault of raid 0 itself; perhaps he was planning on buying a separate raid 0 controller that doesn't have reliability problems. So doubling the chance of data loss from hardware failure (which is admittedly pretty small - but keep backups! other things kill data too) is all one can assume when someone asks about raid 0.
 
tuskenraider said:
What, you don't like that I have a positive experience of RAID0 to share?
Click to expand...
No, I don't like that we spend so much time arguing about it and so little time testing it. Thus, I'm not going to argue. Buying another Raptor is on my agenda, so I can do some tests, though :D
 
"Here's a comprimise: Gett a good Hardware RAID 0 card (Eg. 3Ware 9650) and two Raptor 37GB. Then periodically back up the 74GB Raptor array to an inexpensive external 100GB drive. This way you get the increased performance of RAID 0 without sacrificing very valuable real estate on your Raptors. Putting a Raptor in a RAID 1 setup seems a bit wasteful to me, but it could make sense if you're storing important data on the same partition as your OS."

That might work, but have you looked at the price tag of a dedicated card and 3 Raptors? My RAID-1 suggestion was basically to just add a second drive that is identical to what he has.

With the criteria of ONLY two drives, RAID-0 is not an option unless the follow applies:

You have absolutely no data that you care about. You could throw your machine into the ocean tomorrow and not care about any of the data.
You love reloading your OS, patches, installing programs, etc. You find this enjoyable and won't care if you have to do this because your array gets corrupted or a drive fails.

In the case where this applies to you, have at it.
 
unhappy_mage said:
No, I don't like that we spend so much time arguing about it and so little time testing it. Thus, I'm not going to argue. Buying another Raptor is on my agenda, so I can do some tests, though :D
Click to expand...
Great, I look forward to hearing about your experience. I've done my testing and share my experience with others. The 15-20% gain sums it all up simply. As far as the "OMG, your RAID0 is gonna die for CERTAIN and you'll lose all your data" criers, well, some people like to live in a bubble. A simple backup takes away all the worries. And I always hear how crappy onboard controllers are, but I've had no failures, no corruption, no lost anything in the 4+ years I've been running RAID0 on at least 5 onboard controllers. The basic low-level benchmarks show my drives to run just as well as any expensive controller. Beyond lower CPU utilization, what is an "expensive" controller gonna do better for me or anyone?
 
tuskenraider said:
Great, I look forward to hearing about your experience. I've done my testing and share my experience with others. The 15-20% gain sums it all up simply. As far as the "OMG, your RAID0 is gonna die for CERTAIN and you'll lose all your data" criers, well, some people like to live in a bubble. A simple backup takes away all the worries. And I always here how crappy onboard controllers are, but I've had no failures, no corruption, no lost anything in the 4+ years I've been running RAID0 on at least 5 onboard controllers. The basic low-level benchmarks show my drives to run just as well as any expensive controller. Beyond lower CPU utilization, what is an "expensive" controller gonna do better for me or anyone?
Click to expand...

Can we just drop this for now? We've discussed this numerous times and gotten nowhere.
 
Where is there to get? Price, risk and performance equal something different for everyone. There will be no final agreement of the value of RAID0 to everyone. Accept it and move on or keep complaining that you don't like that others don't agree with you. I will share my experience and if you have one, you can share it as well. Let the OP decide from there.
 
When is this thread gonna get locked?

Just get one Raptor, get some more RAM, and you'll reduce any bottlenecks for boot time. Take this from a person who's been running RAID 0 for 3 years, and is going back to a single drive setup on the next reformat. I've setup RAID 0 correctly, done my time with it, and the only thing I have ever notcied a difference in is map loading, and installing Windows XP.
 
protias said:
Can we just drop this for now? We've discussed this numerous times and gotten nowhere.
Click to expand...
It would be nice, but his idea of fun is to flame people who don't agree with him on a certain topic, until the thread gets locked. So far, the advice others have given has been correct.

It's kind of like when everyone thought the world was flat. At some point, proof was given that it was round. Some choice to agree, and some chose to live under their rocks in the past. It's the difference between learning, and closed-mindedness.

Just ignore him. If he wants to use RAID0 and pretend it's faster, so be it.

To the OP: If you aren't willing to buy extra drives, you won't be cnosidering RAID anyway. Not that it would solve your situation, but you can't run RAID on a single drive. Worrying about boot time is somewhat of a waste anyway. Cutting your boot time from 30 second to 25 isn't really doing anything miportant, is it? Chances are, if you do have a very long boot time, it's a software or network issue anyway.
 
"Great, I look forward to hearing about your experience. I've done my testing and share my experience with others. The 15-20% gain sums it all up simply. As far as the "OMG, your RAID0 is gonna die for CERTAIN and you'll lose all your data" criers, well, some people like to live in a bubble. A simple backup takes away all the worries. And I always hear how crappy onboard controllers are, but I've had no failures, no corruption, no lost anything in the 4+ years I've been running RAID0 on at least 5 onboard controllers. The basic low-level benchmarks show my drives to run just as well as any expensive controller. Beyond lower CPU utilization, what is an "expensive" controller gonna do better for me or anyone?"

One specific instance doesn't prove anything. It's great that you talk about backups, but given that the guy is going to have 2 drives, how exactly do you suggest he does this? Should he write out 1's and 0's on scrap paper?

If he goes with RAID-0, he needs at least 3 drives. Two for the RAID and one for backup. This of course gives him no DR at all, so he'll need a 4th drive for that. He'll probably also need a controller unless he likes giving up high CPU utilization to the on board RAID controller. You conveniently forgot to mention this, didn't you.

RAID-0 is fine if you have some place to back up the data and you don't care about possible downtime issues. Are you two 7200RPM drives in RAID-0 going to be better than one large 10k drive given the increased CPU utilization, increased chances of downtime? It's highly doubtful. You could of course, mirror two 150 Raptors, but that's not what the OP is talking about and in that case you probably have the budget for both mirroring and striping.

Advocating RAID-0 is fine as long as you explain the solution. Without doing so, you're being irresponsible. There are plenty of posts on here from people who have lots all of their data because they listened to 0 zealots who didn't explain any drawbacks.

"When is this thread gonna get locked?"

Why should it? It's good, civil discussion. I know it's been discussed before. I've asked to have a sticky made of this issue so we can all just point someone in that direction, but the idea was gunned down by the mods.
 
djnes said:
It would be nice, but his idea of fun is to flame people who don't agree with him on a certain topic, until the thread gets locked. So far, the advice others have given has been correct.

It's kind of like when everyone thought the world was flat. At some point, proof was given that it was round. Some choice to agree, and some chose to live under their rocks in the past. It's the difference between learning, and closed-mindedness.

Just ignore him. If he wants to use RAID0 and pretend it's faster, so be it.
Click to expand...
Please get your facts straight. You sir, are a LIAR and a HYPOCRITE. Please don't EVER insinuate I've had a thread locked here before or that my results are bogus. Who's being close-minded when they can't accept someone else's results that are different than theirs? :rolleyes:

One specific instance doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...
Well, I have had 5 instances on 5 controllers, so it's pretty consistant on my end. I'm not into data risk and spending money for nothing.


It's great that you talk about backups, but given that the guy is going to have 2 drives, how exactly do you suggest he does this? Should he write out 1's and 0's on scrap paper?
Click to expand...

jblue,

You have the ICH7R chipset on your board that can utilize only two drives and run a RAID0 and RAID1 array simultaneously. You can make a speedy RAID0 array and a redundant RAID1 array to keep your data on and a backup of your RAID0 OS install. Good walkthrough article here on how to do it.
 
tuskenraider said:
Please get your facts straight. You sir, are a LIAR and a HYPOCRITE. Please don't EVER insinuate I've had a thread locked here before or that my results are bogus. Who's being close-minded when they can't accept someone else's results that are different than theirs? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'd look up the definition of those words, before you stoop to your usual, flaming self. I know you've caused threads to be locked, as I've had IM conversations with the mod who has locked them.
 
tuskenraider said:
You have the ICH7R chipset on your board that can utilize only two drives and run a RAID0 and RAID1 array simultaneously. You can make a speedy RAID0 array and a redundant RAID1 array to keep your data on and a backup of your RAID0 OS install. Good walkthrough article here on how to do it.
Click to expand...

If you're going to setup RAID on the onboard controller, this is how I did it. And if you really want to go through with it, do it this way.
 
I'd look up the definition of those words, before you stoop to your usual, flaming self. I know you've caused threads to be locked, as I've had IM conversations with the mod who has locked them.
Click to expand...
Is truth flaming? Is not a hypocrite someone who says one thing and does another? Such as call people close-minded when he is the same thing himself? Is not a liar someone who hasn't spoken the truth? I CHALLENGE you to find the thread, with the help of a moderator of course, to find the thread that was closed due to my posting like you say there is.
 
I don't need to prove anything. You've succeeded in derailing yet another thread. Nice job.
 
djnes said:
I don't need to prove anything. You've succeeded in derailing yet another thread. Nice job.
Click to expand...
So you think coming on a forum and making false claims about another member is acceptable? Nothing was derailed until you came in here attacking my opinion. Of course you don't have to prove anything because your wrong in your statements about me and this thread will sit in evidence of that. I gave the OP my opinion and probably the best solution to attempt a RAID0 setup on his PC since it was he himself who wants to experiment with it, so let him.
 
Let's stick to the facts shall we? RAID-0 is not a solution for someone who will only be using 2 hard drives. The backups that tuskenraider himself have noted are required are not possible in such a setup. A Raptor and a regular drive give the OP performance and also some level of safety against a drive failure. He would also have no possibility of array corruption.
 
general said:
Let's stick to the facts shall we? RAID-0 is not a solution for someone who will only be using 2 hard drives. The backups that tuskenraider himself have noted are required are not possible in such a setup. A Raptor and a regular drive give the OP performance and also some level of safety against a drive failure. He would also have no possibility of array corruption.
Click to expand...
Sure. First, the risks are known and out there so that's taken care of. Everyone has their own risk threshold. Second, backups are definately doable in my proposed solution. It's basically why Intel created Matrix RAID. You create your RAID0 array of say 50GB, the RAID1 with the remaining 270GB or so, install the OS and apps on RAID0. You use DriveImage XML(free) or I would get Acronis True Image, to image the RAID0 array to the RAID1 array, which even if he used the whole 50GB might be 20-25 compressed. If the OP finds RAID0 isn't that great, he'll still has a drive for OS and apps and another for data. If both drives crap out simultaneously, you'd lose everything in a RAID setup or not. Simple and it will give the OP a good education of the two most used RAID levels on desktops.
 
general said:
"Here's a comprimise: Gett a good Hardware RAID 0 card (Eg. 3Ware 9650) and two Raptor 37GB. Then periodically back up the 74GB Raptor array to an inexpensive external 100GB drive. This way you get the increased performance of RAID 0 without sacrificing very valuable real estate on your Raptors. Putting a Raptor in a RAID 1 setup seems a bit wasteful to me, but it could make sense if you're storing important data on the same partition as your OS."

That might work, but have you looked at the price tag of a dedicated card and 3 Raptors? My RAID-1 suggestion was basically to just add a second drive that is identical to what he has.

With the criteria of ONLY two drives, RAID-0 is not an option unless the follow applies:

You have absolutely no data that you care about. You could throw your machine into the ocean tomorrow and not care about any of the data.
You love reloading your OS, patches, installing programs, etc. You find this enjoyable and won't care if you have to do this because your array gets corrupted or a drive fails.

In the case where this applies to you, have at it.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the sort. Just use a push-button backup solution such as a Seagate 120GB USB 2.0 drive. Now you have the reliability of RAID 1 with the space and speed of RAID 0. Indeed, you have better reliability, because you can store the backup in a fire proof safe. Even if your power supply fries or your house burns down you're still good to go.

Also, the cost is not that great.

3Ware SATA controller ~ $180
2x Raptor 36GB ~ $200

$380 for unbeatable hard drive performance? Not bad. When making hard drive purchases you really need to consider that they will not quickly become obsolete. Unlike graphics cards or CPUs there isn't much potential for near term increase in hard drive performance. You can only make a platter spin so fast. Fast and reasonably prices solid state storage is a ways off yet.

You're really blowing the problems of RAID 0 out of proportion. I completely agree that most people who are using probably shouldn't be, but it's still a very good solution when you know what you are doing. The way you're talking about RAID 0 seems like the technical analog of 1940s Marijuana propaganda:

Know your dope fiend. Your life may depend on it. You will not be able to see his eyes,because of Tea-Shades...but his knuckles will be whitefrom inner tension. And his pants will be crusted with semen... from constantly jacking off when he can't find a rape victim. He will stagger and babble when questioned. He will not respect your badge. The dope fiend fears nothing. He will attack for no reason, with any weapon at his command...
Beware: any officer apprehending a suspected marijuana addict...should use all
necessary force immediately. One stitch in time on him will usually save nine...on you
Click to expand...
 
There are 2 kinds of RAID 0 users:

- Those with a functioning RAID 0 array that will eventually fail,

- Those that lost their RAID 0 array already.
 
tuskenraider said:
Is that from the Fuzzy Math school of thought?
What, you don't like that I have a positive experience of RAID0 to share?
Click to expand...

I think that it is important that you share your opinion. I just wish that the "frequent posters" in this subforum would finally agree that we cannot agree on the "R-0 issue" and leave it at that. Each and every "should I RAID-0" thread should get the same responses (in random order):

  • The probability of data loss due to a hardware failure approximately doubles
  • Backing up regularly can negate this effect.
  • R-0 may make data recovery and troubleshooting a bit more difficult.
  • Depending on your application you may see radical improvements.
  • In my experience R-0 has shown significant improvements.
  • In my experience R-0 has shown virtually no improvement.
  • There are ways to improve performance with an "intelligent" disk layout. It is possible that this setup has better performance than R-0 for certain tasks.
  • R-0 will greatly improve the HDTach score.

Not only would that make everyone 'happy' it would also be the closest to the truth that we can get at this point, since it reflects the diverse experiences with R-0. The problem is that it would require the thread starter to make up his or her own mind instead of being able to outsource his decision to the other board members.
 
"Sure. First, the risks are known and out there so that's taken care of. Everyone has their own risk threshold. Second, backups are definately doable in my proposed solution. It's basically why Intel created Matrix RAID."

In your proposed solution? You're either delusional or lying. I read through all of your posts and the only place you mentioned Matrix was just now. You even posted this link
http://www.overclock.net/faqs/48758-info-raid-0-beginners-guide.html
to help the guy set it up. No mention of Matrix there is there???

You did not talk about any of the drawbacks of RAID-0 or his potential for data loss, higher CPU utilization, higher latency than a Raptor, etc. That is completely irresponsible. For all you know, he could have his daughters first steps video going on his machine, important school work or things he actually makes a living from. I realize that you're a RAID-0 zealot. In some cases, the cost can actually make sense when you don't need high availability and you do have a backup scheme. To advocate it to someone who doesn't know about it without discussing the other points is not something you should be doing.

"It's nothing of the sort. Just use a push-button backup solution such as a Seagate 120GB USB 2.0 drive. Now you have the reliability of RAID 1 with the space and speed of RAID 0. Indeed, you have better reliability, because you can store the backup in a fire proof safe. Even if your power supply fries or your house burns down you're still good to go."

I would advocate this too, but the OP said two drives only.

"You're really blowing the problems of RAID 0 out of proportion. I completely agree that most people who are using probably shouldn't be, but it's still a very good solution when you know what you are doing. The way you're talking about RAID 0 seems like the technical analog of 1940s Marijuana propaganda:"

You seem to have a decent grasp of the issue, but you're missing why I sound like propaganda. The reason why is that every week or few weeks, you'll have someone come on here saying that a drive in their RAID-0 array failed or it became corrupted and they want to know how they can recover the data from their other drive. It's sad and the only thing anyone can say is that it's gone and I hope you backed up. If you go back and look at the start of this post, you'll see people irresponsibly recommending RAID-0 to someone who doesn't really need it without explaining why. The forum hasn't seen fit to make a sticky on this topic and it is terrible that people would advocate something like striping without explaining all of the elements. RAID-0 can be useful, but in many cases, a more expensive drive is better.

"Also, the cost is not that great.

3Ware SATA controller ~ $180
2x Raptor 36GB ~ $200"

$400 vs $140 for a 74GB Raptor or $180 for a 150? Are you going to pay for it? How about you paypal the guy the money? This would also give him 72GB of storage max. He wants two drives at most remember. If he does use the matrix raid, then it will be less. Given that the guy bought a 320GB drive to start with, it sure doesn't sound like enough.

" * The probability of data loss due to a hardware failure approximately doubles"
The possibility of data corruption is high also. One of the biggest reason that you'll hear people saying that things like RAID-5 are not a backup is due the possibility of array corruption.

" * Backing up regularly can negate this effect."
Backing up regularly does not negate this effect. Backing up regularly gives you a way of recovering from it. Putting striping and mirroring together can negate this effect.

" * R-0 may make data recovery and troubleshooting a bit more difficult."
You WILL NOT be able to recover data from a RAID-0 array if a drive dies or the RAID corrupts. The troubleshooting will be you get a new drive and/or build a new array

" * Depending on your application you may see radical improvements."
Depending on your application you may see some improvements. RAID-0 is commonly used for video editing professionals and people who need very high throughput. Some gamers feel that a RAID-0 of two regular SATA drives is a better solution than one expensive SATA drive. This is up for debate.

" * In my experience R-0 has shown significant improvements.
* In my experience R-0 has shown virtually no improvement."
It's not a matter of are there any improvements. It's a matter of do the improvements actually matter (how often do you boot your machine), are they worth the cost, effort and loss of availability and is this a better solution than one better drive?

" * There are ways to improve performance with an "intelligent" disk layout. It is possible that this setup has better performance than R-0 for certain tasks."

" * R-0 will greatly improve the HDTach score."
If you like synthetic benchmarks by themselves then have at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top