| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 68829 | 2006-05-12 04:18:00 | RAID 0 Yes or No?? | The_End_Of_Reality (334) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 454332 | 2006-05-23 23:00:00 | Here is an update of my thoughts... The Raptor looks like it is out due to high cost vs performance... oh well. Now, after E-Mailing an IT tech, he said to go for the bigger buffer, and larger than 80GB drives. Now I am thinking 2 300GBs (www.ascent.co.nz) in RAID 0 or maybe not in RAID, because this will be used as storage as well. Is the RAID 0 SO unreliable that I WILL lose everything? IE what is the risk factor out of 10 for those who have RAID 0 to lose everything? also if I don't go for RAID, what are the risks of JBOD? EDIT: Deimos how did you corrupt by OCing too far? how is that avoidable? EDIT #2: I have just been reading about JBOD and it seems to have the same risks as RAID 0... maybe they would be safer being single and use difference drives of different purposes... |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454333 | 2006-05-23 23:48:00 | RAID 0 is only as unreliable as the drives you buy. If your drives are reliable then RAID 0 is reliable. I don't see any point to using JBOD either. |
Greven (91) | ||
| 454334 | 2006-05-24 04:20:00 | TEOR - To enjoy the benefits of RAID, you must run the O/S on the RAID drives. As O/S on needs 40Gb top, I wouldnt be getting too large drives. | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 454335 | 2006-05-24 05:08:00 | TEOR - To enjoy the benefits of RAID, you must run the O/S on the RAID drives. As O/S on needs 40Gb top, I wouldnt be getting too large drives. err......no. it all depends on WHY and how you use raid. gaming wise it makes sence to have OS on the raid array but if your useing the raid for storage then its not really needed. depending on the setup it can work very well to have OS on IDE controller and the bulk data on the onboard sata RAID array. that way you can access both sets of drives at the same time. also keep in mind if you want to use the raid in another pc. a lot of raids are not tranferable. with some you can unplug the array and plug it into another pc without loss of data, handy if you have a motherboard failure/upgrade. just rember you need to set the raid up occurding to use, otherwise it can run slower than a single disk. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 454336 | 2006-05-24 05:12:00 | depending on the setup it can work very well to have OS on IDE controller and the bulk data on the onboard sata RAID array. that way you can access both sets of drives at the same time. Exactly how I have mine set up. ;) |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 454337 | 2006-05-24 05:29:00 | The drives willl be Seagate and I consider them the most reliable. The OS will be on the RAID, but I am thinking of price vs capacity as well, which will mean having storage on the RAID as well with the bigger drives. I am thinking future use as well because I have only 3 spare drive bays and the RAID will consume 2 and there will only be 1 spare for another drive later... Is RAID 0 SO much of a NOTICEABLE performance increase? |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454338 | 2006-05-24 06:17:00 | Depends on what you're doing apart from benchmarking. The StorageReview link I put in the other thread had some objective results. Most ordinary desktop use doesn't have enough big file access to make much difference and you'd be better off with programs and Data on different drives and controllers so the OS could access both concurrently. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 454339 | 2006-05-24 06:31:00 | err......no. it all depends on WHY and how you use raid. gaming wise it makes sence to have OS on the raid array but if your useing the raid for storage then its not really needed. depending on the setup it can work very well to have OS on IDE controller and the bulk data on the onboard sata RAID array. that way you can access both sets of drives at the same time. also keep in mind if you want to use the raid in another pc. a lot of raids are not tranferable. with some you can unplug the array and plug it into another pc without loss of data, handy if you have a motherboard failure/upgrade. just rember you need to set the raid up occurding to use, otherwise it can run slower than a single disk. I thought this guy was a gamer? which would enjoy better load time on RAID with O/S, as per my recommendation. Storage on single for security! I would never store on RAID unless it was RAID0+1 or 5 |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 454340 | 2006-05-24 06:42:00 | soz i though he was into video editing :) Is RAID 0 SO much of a NOTICEABLE performance increase? it comes down to how you use it. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 454341 | 2006-05-24 07:18:00 | He he he, I am both :p :D I do a lot of gaming and also video editing :D :p My primary uses will be gaming, general use and video editing. Sorry for any confusion :) |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||