Tell me about RAID0+1.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trifid

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,010
I need more storage space as my 80 and 250GB and now full. I was thinking about replacing both drives for 4 7200.10 250GB drives and placing them in RAID0+1. Now the redundancy bit is what I don't get. If I lose 1 hard drive I know it is fine But what about 2? Can I lose any random 2? Can I still continue using the PC if one or 2 hard drives go and it be exactly the same as before, minus the redundancy? Anything else I need to know? I.e. does it work fine with Vista?

What I want to know is, am I better off going for 2x RAID 0 arrays and doing incremental backups to the other or having a RAID0 and a 500GB to backup to?

Thanks, Trif.
 
I'd recommend a RAID5 array over RAID0+1 because it requires 3HD's and performs same as RAID0+1 without the need of an extra HD (it requires 4)
 
With the added cost of needing an expensive RAID controller to get half decent write speeds due to working out parity.
 
The parity for a RAID5 is a simple XOR function and is *very* processor effecient.

You can lose two drives in a RAID0+1, but not any two. If you lose a drive and it's mirror, you lose all your data.

RAID5 will give you more storage for your $, run just as effecient as a RAID0+1, and protect you from a single drive failure.
 
And the cheapest PCIE RAID5 compatible card is £90. Might as well go for RAID01 which can take up to 2 drives failing, works with integrated Nvidia RAID and uses HTT instead of PCIE.
 
The cheapest RAID5 controller is £90? That seems odd, considering my motherboard has onboard RAID5 support and it was only $120 USD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom