RAID 0 gives better performance, but comes with a greater risk. With RAID 0, if one of your hard drives fails, then you lose everything on both of them. RAID 1 will basically make two copies of everything, one on each of the hard drives.
RAID 0 gives better performance, but comes with a greater risk. With RAID 0, if one of your hard drives fails, then you lose everything on both of them. RAID 1 will basically make two copies of everything, one on each of the hard drives.
I have a question too, sorry to hijack but I see you had your question answered.
What if I had two 250GB harddrives runing at RAID0, and I had another 250GB harddrive just there, so thats a total of 3 250GB HD's. Now, I want to make 2 of them RAID0, and of those 2 in RAID0, I want it to mirror all the information onto the one harddrive remaining, kinda like RAID1. Is this possible?
Yes, RAID is very flexible, but you need the proper RAID controller cards to implement certain levels. You could do a RAID 3 or 4. If you had 4 hard drives, then you could implement RAID 0+1. In your case, however, I think that RAID 5 would be the best. RAID 5 offers the ability to stripe the data over multiple discs and have parity blocks. Check out the link I posted, it shows all the levels of RAID and has benefits/disadvantages of each.
RAID 0, striping= double bandwidth because data is stored across 2 drives however if one fails all data in the array is lost
RAID 1, mirroring= second drive mirrors first giving you a redundant backup
RAID 0+1, mirroring and striping= like vybuni said requires 4 hdd's. will give double bandwidth and a redundant copy of information in case of failure. RAID 0+1 is easy to repair if a drive fails. however you only get half the storage available in the array for actual use. brilliant if you can live with the half storage thing and can afford 4 identical drives