To RAID or not to RAID?

"Forum User" wrote in message
...
Never done RAID, so here's a newbie answer to the newbie question.

You gotta love a ****ing moron who starts a post like this...

"Kill Bill" wrote in message
...

"Forum User" wrote in message
...
Never done RAID, so here's a newbie answer to the newbie question.

You gotta love a ****ing moron who starts a post like this...

So don't read it.

I'm enjoying it very much.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Kill Bill wrote:
"Forum User" wrote in message
...
Never done RAID, so here's a newbie answer to the newbie question.

You gotta love a ****ing moron who starts a post like this...


You seem upset.

I had 4 drives in raid 0 and got ****ed off, it kept getting corrupt after a
month. I divided out the identical drives and have had no problem since.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes it sounds like a newbie question, anyway...

Which is beter for performance, a single hard drive of say, 160 GB or
two 80 gig drives in a RAID 0 config? Going to get a SATA II hard
drive (want to test the nF4 hack) and I see a 160 gig drive is about
$20 cheaper than two 80G drives. Assuming a 7200rpm disc speed and the
same manufacturer, is a striped config of two drives faster than a
single drive equal in size to the other two? Wouldn't the single drive
naturally be faster? Just thought I'd ask, and thanks.

"Mickey" wrote in message
...
I had 4 drives in raid 0 and got ****ed off, it kept getting corrupt after
a month. I divided out the identical drives and have had no problem since.

What controller?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ashp wrote in news:1117184044.492.0@nnrp-t71-
02.news.clara.net:

wrote:

Yes it sounds like a newbie question, anyway...

Which is beter for performance, a single hard drive of say, 160 GB or
two 80 gig drives in a RAID 0 config? Going to get a SATA II hard
drive (want to test the nF4 hack) and I see a 160 gig drive is about
$20 cheaper than two 80G drives. Assuming a 7200rpm disc speed and
the
same manufacturer, is a striped config of two drives faster than a
single drive equal in size to the other two? Wouldn't the single
drive
naturally be faster? Just thought I'd ask, and thanks.

If RAID 0 isn't faster what is the point of it? Why would anybody do
it?


It is faster. 50% faster for me.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes it sounds like a newbie question, anyway...

Which is beter for performance, a single hard drive of say, 160 GB or
two 80 gig drives in a RAID 0 config? Going to get a SATA II hard
drive (want to test the nF4 hack) and I see a 160 gig drive is about
$20 cheaper than two 80G drives. Assuming a 7200rpm disc speed and the
same manufacturer, is a striped config of two drives faster than a
single drive equal in size to the other two? Wouldn't the single drive
naturally be faster? Just thought I'd ask, and thanks.


http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-in...leDriveVsRaid0

--
Derek

Mickey wrote:
I had 4 drives in raid 0 and got ****ed off, it kept getting corrupt
after a month. I divided out the identical drives

You mean you de-RAIDed them ?

and have had no
problem since.
wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes it sounds like a newbie question, anyway...

Which is beter for performance, a single hard drive of say, 160 GB or
two 80 gig drives in a RAID 0 config? Going to get a SATA II hard
drive (want to test the nF4 hack) and I see a 160 gig drive is about
$20 cheaper than two 80G drives. Assuming a 7200rpm disc speed and
the same manufacturer, is a striped config of two drives faster than
a single drive equal in size to the other two? Wouldn't the single
drive naturally be faster? Just thought I'd ask, and thanks.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes it sounds like a newbie question, anyway...

Which is beter for performance, a single hard drive of say, 160 GB or
two 80 gig drives in a RAID 0 config?

Better read and write speeds with RAID 0. But you double your failure rate.
If either drive fails, you lose all the data on both drives.

Your best bet for both speed and reliability is either RAID 0+1 or RAID 5.
Both give you the speed and increase, rather than decrease, your data
reliability. Unfortunately, RAID 0+1 doubles the drives needed (4 80GB's
gives you just 160GB in storage), and RAID 5 needs an expensive hardware
controller. If you're going to do RAID 0, then make sure you have another
drive in the system to store your data, and use the RAID for the OS and
programs.

BUT, the real question is, why do RAID 0 at all? Unless the rest of your
system is truly cutting edge, increasing the drive performance isn't really
going to have a major effect on overall system performance. So, your games
might load faster, but game play isn't going to be improved all that much.
Same with any other program.


Bill G






Going to get a SATA II hard
drive (want to test the nF4 hack) and I see a 160 gig drive is about
$20 cheaper than two 80G drives. Assuming a 7200rpm disc speed and the
same manufacturer, is a striped config of two drives faster than a
single drive equal in size to the other two? Wouldn't the single drive
naturally be faster? Just thought I'd ask, and thanks.

With all the talk (wherever RAID is mentioned) of RAID 0 being so dangerous
because if 1 drive fails they are both useless, I wonder if that matters so
much. If a single drive fails it's useless, unless you want to pay a company
to open it up and recover the data. Seems like keeping good backups is the
answer.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.