Topic: RAID 0 or RAID 1?

[codeblue]

I will be getting 2 x 200GB HDs with a new system and plan on running them in a RAID format.  However, I'm not sure if I want to use a RAID 0 or a RAID 1.  I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each, but I'm curious to know what others think and your personal experiences with either method.

Specifically, do you think increased performance of the RAID 0 is worth the risk?

And, how much performance increase have you gotten from a RAID 1?

Thanks!

P.S.  Zeus, I see you run a RAID 0....how do you find it?  Any problems?

[LobbDogg]

I also run WD raptors in RAID 0, I do like the performance increase in the RAID 0.  The only experiences I have with RAID 1 is using Windows built in software level RAID 1 for my mp3s, and it works good, of course there is some CPU overhead for it, but since the songs are on my server I can't tell a difference in performance between before I was using it and now that I am using it.

[Zeus]

I do indeed run a RAID 0 setup right now. . . and have for about 2-3 years.  Only once did I have a major issue and lost a drive.  I do run my RAID 0 array as storage setup with my OS on a separate drive.  That was if I do lose my RAID array, I still can boot and hopefully recover and/or repair some data.

RAID 0 is significantly faster in benchmarks, but the performance when oading games is not nearly as large.  This is likely due to caching and other operations that happen. . . not just transferring data.  Large data transfers from drive to RAID, and from RAID to RAID are much faster when using RAID 0 that just a single drive.  As far as RAID 1 goes, it is slower than a single drive.  This is because the computer has to compute reads and writes to two drives instead of just one.

Again, in benchmarking this will be quite apparent, but in real world usage it is not as big of a deal.  If you tweak a RAID 0 array, it can fly and you will be loading UT2004 & levels in 5 - 10 seconds or less.

I'm happy with RAID 0 and backup vital data onto a removable drive or other hard drive.  If you don't need the security, I'd go with RAID 0. . . why not get the most from your drives?  You could also just run two independent drives as well.  Same storage of RAID 0, slightly less performance, but all you data won't be lost if one drive faiils.

I guess it really depends on whether you need 200GB of storage or 400GB of storage.

[Seeker]

here is some help to explain this raid deal good read for sure, as im thinking about raid in the near future

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=830

[codeblue]

Thanks for the info guys.  That's the best article on RAID  have read so far Seeker, thanks!  

Is there a way to divide or classify some data as RAID 0 material and other data as RAID 1 or plain data?

Reason being is that some data (such as games etc) would be great to have striped for loading levels etc.  But I also have some other data such a webpage material / photos that I would be pretty upset about if I lost it.  

Of course, some sort of external backup is probably the best way to go; however, I won't be doing this every day, so could I define how I want different data to be stored?

I'm not sure if this is posisble or not...is it?

Thanks!

[Fujitsu]

probably best idea if you have stuff you don't want to lose is to back up on another HD

I've got 2x120 WD's in Raid 0, and then a 40 gig backup drive

Works well for me, but then again I've never had my raid set crash, and I've been running it for years now

[LobbDogg]

If you got a RAID controller that did RAID 0+1 then it would do striping plus mirroring.  Alot of onboard controllers do not support this method of RAID though.

[Seeker]

What would ppl choose for a new mobo with  codeblue's problem?? (kinda for me also)

[Zeus]

If you want to stick with the Socket A platform right now Seeker, you can snag a DFI NF2 Ultra Infinity.  It has a SI3114 SATA chipset that supports four SATA drives in RAID 0, 1, 0+1, and JBOD.  You can also set up a RAID 0, 1, 0+1, and even 5 array from within Windows XP.  Performance tests have shown very little difference between hardware RAID and software RAID within Windows.

[Seeker]

thanks for the info have to see if it would compare to this epox one i got now (overclocking features)