Wat the *** is raid?

[Tuskatappaja]

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

Im not sure how much greater, like I said im poor in math, lol.

Seagate is indeed a good choice, I myself favor WD but have nothing bad to say about Seagate.

Did you know that Seagate bought Maxtor, Im dreadfully waiting the new line of Seagate drives

 

[MrCoffee]

well its quite obvious really, say for example disk A has a 10% failure rate over 5 years but then you RAID 0 that disk with an identical one B, Your new failure rate becomes 20% over 5 years.

I.e. there is a 20% chance one of your disks will fail and you will lose all your data as opposed to 10%.
Those are just hypothetical figures of course.

 

[alexsabree]

wow... this is too hard.. and takes to much time.... and is unsafe.
That answers my question

In my opinion, raid is a waste of time

Unless u have to have the small increase (or whatever u gain)

 

[MrCoffee]

RAID has its uses but your average joe needn't bother with it.

 

[Nitestick]

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

no....like MrCoffee said the terms are interchangeable, they are both correct. and in my opinion Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks fits better since the inclusion of RAID level 0 as it really is not an independant disk system (why many people say it is not truly RAID). however the reason the term inexpensive applies is because it is relatively cheap. e.g 2x250gb hdd's vs 1x500gb hdd.

 

[Ste]

Only RAID 0 Is unsafe, but it shouldn't matter if you keep back ups. Like you should anyways. There are alot of other RAIDS Also.

Search for it on wikipedia and youll see.

 

[john3]

I always see people saying " this mobo has raid0 and stuff"

Wat the *** is all this raid stuff?

I dont understand a thing on teh subject.

i believe fkuc is spelt with 4 stars **** not ***

 

[alexsabree]

i meant h*ll

not fkuc... but thats off topic

 

[thephamtom123]

RAID

RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independant Disks.

I think that it's pointless. If you do

0- You have a chance of losing your hard drive
1-You waste a hard drive
0+1- You're wasting FOUR drives!


_________________________

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
ATX Xion Solaris Case w/ 650 wtt. Power Supply
HP LightScribe 16x Dual-Layer +/- DVD burner
LG 16x DVD-ROM
19" ViewSonic LCD monitor
Creative X-Fi PRO sound card
7.1 channel speakers
MSI Micro-Star Neo2 KX480 motherboard
ATI All-In-One PCI Express Video Card
2048 MB Crucial Ballistic Memory
300 GB SATA150 hard drive (partioned in two)

MAC OS X tiger running on one partition (PearPC)

Windows Media Center Edition 2005 on the other

 

[maroon1]

i still don't understand how can harddrive fails with RAID0
how can files get lost by itself with RAID 0? and why?

sorry for my stupid question but i really don't know any thing about RAID