4tb HDD RAID!.. Should I?

[frldyz]

Almost done buying all the components for my 1st build.
I have an Samsung 850 pro (512gb) SSD. I will run my operating system ( Win. 7) and programs from here.
The HDD are for storing files. We take a ton of photos and HD videos of our kids. In 1 year I went from 0-500gb on files. So now I am going big. I would love to run RAID 1 as a back-up. I will have an external HD. But I would feel more comfortable with some more security as a backup if something were to happen.
If I run a RAID1 on 2 4tb HDD, this is kind of a safety net if something were to happen to 1 of the drives, correct?
Is there any negative to running 2 4tb HDD in RAID1?
Can Wndows 7 functional with 2 4tb HDD in RAID1? I thought I read somewhere Windows 7 limits you to 2.7tb?
Thanks everyone.

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

I suggest against running 4TB disks in raid(Chance of the array rebuilding without corruption is low)... If you need mass storage, get a NAS that supports a higher level of RAID, like Raid5, and put several 2TB disks into it instead of 4TB disks.

Also, make sure you purchase your disks at different times from different suppliers, because if you order a pair from Newegg, chances are the disks will be from the same lot, and if one has a defect, chances are the other would have a defect.

 

[carnageX]

I would love to run RAID 1 as a back-up. I will have an external HD. But I would feel more comfortable with some more security as a backup if something were to happen.
.

RAID is NOT a backup method! Please don't use it as such, because that is definitely the incorrect way of going about things.

It is redundancy only. A proper backup method is a daily or weekly copy of data to both a separate drive, as well as off-site - so you have both a backup and redundancy.

 

[1etherer]

I rec using a RAID (0 for performance and 1 for redundancy) but also have a backup drive of all that data.

 

[carnageX]

I rec using a RAID (0 for performance and 1 for redundancy) but also have a backup drive of all that data.

RAID 0 is for if you don't care about your data .

"RAID 0 - it's called that because that's exactly how many files you'll be able to recover if it fails."

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

I would never EVER recommend to ANYONE to use R0 at all these days, mostly because R0 was made with the thought of getting high read and writes out of platter based drives. With SSD's now, R0 is mostly pointless unless you are running a server with non-critical data and several SCSI disks.

 

[carnageX]

I would never EVER recommend to ANYONE to use R0 at all these days, mostly because R0 was made with the thought of getting high read and writes out of platter based drives. With SSD's now, R0 is mostly pointless unless you are running a server with non-critical data and several SCSI disks.

Agreed.

But...what about R0 SSD's!!!

In all honesty, if speed is that important...RAM-disk ftw.

 

[frldyz]

I didn't ean for it to sound like I think RAID! is a back-up. Sorry if it came across like that.

The benefit of RAID1 is only if 1 HDD dies ( maybe from some kind of mechanical failure ) then the info is still there on the 2nd HDD assuming there is no mechanical failure.

If 1 dies, its still available on the other.
Assuming there is no ccorruption or file damage etc...