To RAID or not to RAID...

[Lord AnthraX]

No kidding.....

 

[bryan64]

I have a $4000 dollar budget for this computer and I realize that the 1900XTX is faster in some regards, but right now I prefer the 7800GTX. ATI has left a sour taste in my mouth (twitchy drivers, at least for me). As far as the Terabyte of storage, it would not be a terabyte as it would be in a RAID 0+1 config and as I understand it a RAID 1 gives you half the storage (for redundancy) and a RAID 0 gives you the total of the drives in the raid (for speed) so my assumption is it would still be 250 GB. I may be wrong.

Either way I am still figuring out what I am going to do with my HD's. Here is the list from my other thread of what the entire build is going to be for those of you that are curious:

mobo: AN832 SLI Deluxe
cpu: AMD FX-60
mem: Corsair TWINX20483500LLPRO
HD's: still determining
PSU: Pcpowercooling 850 SSI
video: XFX 7800 GTX 512
sound: Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS Pro (from old rig)
DVD Burner: Plextor 716A
mouse: Logitexh G5 Laser Mouse
keyboard: Logitech G15 Gaming
case: Thermaltake ARMOR VA8000BWS
watercooling: Corsair Cool Water (most likely)

 

[Lord AnthraX]

that PSU is overkill...check out some other reliable brands..dont think Iv heard that one...also do you have a OS....Im guessing you do since your taing your old soundcard from the other computer...

 

[cobalt817]

Not exactly. Although you will get the same outcome, with four disks running, you are four times as lkely to have a disk failure. Granted you will rarely have a 4 disk spanned RAID setup, you get the point. With RAID 0, you are twice as likely to have a disk failure. If you do RAID 0+1, you are safe, because upon failure of a disk, the same information is stored on another disk, so no worries.

All of this sounds bad, but think about how rare a disk failure is. Say a disk failure chance is 1%. In RAID 0, you would have a 2% chance of data loss.

Having four disks in operation does not increase the chance of failure four times, it will increase the odds of failure, but only slightly. Four time increase would suggest a %400 chance of failure increase. Each dive has the SAME chance of failure.

 

[Brtnboarder495]

I'd personally get a 36 HD to use for OS, gaming and intensive apps and buy a 120 HD for storage of music, files, photos, ect.

The RAID choice is yours.

 

[bryan64]

I have decided to scrap the RAID idea and go the simple stupid route instead. I will will go with the 74GB Raptor for the OS and Utilities and the 150GB Raptor for the games/graphic programs and use the drives I already have from the old comp and/or network to the old comp which I will use as a dual boot system so I can run my photo printer from it as the printer manufacturer does not make a decent driver for XP. I don't store alot of files other than photos (part time photographer) but that's what the DVD burner is for and as of right now I don't listen to alot of music on the computer so I don't need huge amounts of storage

As far as the PSU goes, yes it may be overkill, but if there is a chance I will SLI in the future or put more drives in for whatever reason, it will be nice to have.

p.s. PCPowercooling quite possibly makes the finest PSU's around. They are expensive, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

http://www.pcpowercooling.com

 

[Sport1031]

Having four disks in operation does not increase the chance of failure four times, it will increase the odds of failure, but only slightly. Four time increase would suggest a %400 chance of failure increase. Each dive has the SAME chance of failure.

Each drive will still have the same chanch of failing individually, but overall, your chance is increaded 400%, like you said, which is 4 times. So overall, you are four times more likely to have a disk fail. Yes I know it's not that much, i explained that in my previous post.