Wat the *** is raid?

[alilxmas]

Why not just stick in both sata drives, and have them run without raid, you can use something like drive image to make backups of your OP SYS hd if it fails, just get another HD and use the image stored on the second one to make an exact replacement of the one that was there.

This by far seems alot more easier for me to do, and also have full use of storage space for both of my drives.

With drive image, all I do is replace the bad drive, then all I have to do is go to the bios and select boot from cd, stick in the DRIVE IMAGE cd and select what image you would like to restore.

Im back up and running without any problems, within an hours time. Well I do have to got o store and get a replacement drive.

But to each their own.

 

[magouster]

I've read somewhere that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independant Disks", and not "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". So which one is it? I know, stupid question, but both accronyms could work.

 

[Apokalipse]

Theres no point in RAID 0, unless you want to lose all your data
It gives a performance boost, yes, but a failure in 1 drive will lose data on both.

if you get high quality drives (like Seagate's, or Western Digital's) then it shouldn't be a problem.
yes, if you lose one drive, you will lose all your data on the RAID 0 drive.
but you also lose your data on a single drive if it fails anyway.

 

[Tuskatappaja]

if you get high quality drives (like Seagate's, or Western Digital's) then it shouldn't be a problem.
yes, if you lose one drive, you will lose all your data on the RAID 0 drive.
but you also lose your data on a single drive if it fails anyway.

Thats true, but even with my poor math I can tell its more likely to have failure using 2 drives than with 1 drive

 

[leeslangley]

Hmm what sort of performance increase are we talking about with RAID 0, is it worth it for gamers who want quick swap times and game load times?

 

[MrCoffee]

I've read somewhere that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independant Disks", and not "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". So which one is it? I know, stupid question, but both accronyms could work.

Both terms are valid, I use the interchangeably.

RAID 0 imo is risky but good if you don't mind a rebuild if a drive fails i.e. if you have no important data.

RAID 1 is fine for redundancy but I think i'd rather just image the drive every week or so, that way you have a backup rather than just a mirror. I.e. if you delete stuff on disk 1 in a mirror set it does from disk 2 as well but if you have the drive imaged you can restore to your last backup.
RAID 1 is really ofr business that needs uninterupted service on a server.


RAID 5 or 10 good stuff but you need lots of drives so more $$

 

[NathanM]

I've read somewhere that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independant Disks", and not "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". So which one is it? I know, stupid question, but both accronyms could work.

The correct one is "Redundant Array of Independent Disks." Because technically, any raid can have very expensive disks if you'd like.

 

[TheOtis]

Except for the fact that htier is no correct term. It's either or.

 

[Apokalipse]

Thats true, but even with my poor math I can tell its more likely to have failure using 2 drives than with 1 drive

how much greater?

I would only consider it a big risk if I was running something like a heavily used file server, and even then only if I was using not-so-good quality drives (for example, Maxtor)
if I could help it, I would have the server run on Seagate drives only, or maybe Western Digital.

I like my Seagate drives, I have 3 of them, and I have had no problems at all with them.
in fact, Seagate have the lowest failure rate, followed by Western Digital.

man, I must sound like I work for Seagate

 

[Tuskatappaja]

Hmm what sort of performance increase are we talking about with RAID 0, is it worth it for gamers who want quick swap times and game load times?

Well if you have SATA Raid integrated to mobo (most of us have)
it will take some processor power to administer the raid, since its not true hardware raid (no raid co-processor), but of course with modern athlon 64/opteron processor its not an big issue.
We are talking about some 3%-5% of processor usage.

Yes the performance increase, it's usually not mindblowing, some 10%-25% but its an increase none the less.

If the hd:s support NCQ (native command queuing) and the controller support it too, you should get better performance.

And of course you should use two exactly same kind of hd:s
(same manufacturer and same model)
you can use others too but another hd might slow down the other.