Originally posted by Codeine
The only reason people claim Raid0 is dangerous, is because what will happen if your drive fails. I have dual 36GB WD Raptors running on Raid0.. My friend has the samething, but dual 74GB.
Dual WD Raptors with 10000rpm serial sata owns. Serial SATA is 150, but my system runs at 183. This summer i will be getting another 2 WD Raptors for my new system. That should beat a none Raid0 SCSI drive.
Bull. You arent pushing 183mb/s through 2 raptors. You're going to get like 80-90mb/s max sustained throughput off raptors.
Hell with 2 300gb 16mb cache maxtors i was only getting sustained throughput of 110mb/s.
To answer your question about raid..
raid 0 = striping, it's only as reliable as the harddrives are (one dies, bye bye data)
raid 1 = mirroring, it clones writes to another drive, causing an exact image of the first time. You only get 1 hd of space to use.
raid 0+1 = striping and mirroring, requires 4 drives. If your raid card doesn't have this option then you can create 2 raid 0 logical drives (2 partitions, 4 drives). In windows you then raid the 2 raid 0 arrays together into a raid 1 array. Its messy, but it works.
Originally posted by Qwert
Okay, I've been running on 1 HD my whole computer's life and not had a crashing problem. Is it more likly that Raid 0 will crash then no raid or not? Doesn't matter what happens after.
The only difference is that you get faster throughput to your drives. Instead of 50mb/s (standard benchmark for 7200rpm 8mb cache drive) you'll get like 75.. It also turns the 2 drives into 1. Works well as a cheap upgrade.