Any true RAID Experts out there?

[Cigarjohn]

I am so confused. I get so many different answers that I don't know which is up or down anymore.

My question is about RAID 0.

I want to get two Velocity Raptors which are SATA III and are 600 gb each.

So, in a RAID 0 configuration, do I have 1.2 terrabytes of storage or only just 600 gb of storage?

Some people say that a RAID 0's performance is minimal and others say the performance is greatly increased.

I don't care about safety and I know that if one drive fails in a RAID 0, I will lose all my information. I don't care.

All I want to know is if I put two 600 gb drives together in a RAID 0 configuration, will my storage capacity be increased to 1.2 terrabytes or will I only have 600 gb of storage capacity.

I understand the stripping of the memory blocks in a RAID 0 configuration.


What is your opinion on my question.

 

[Tsunade]

RAID 0 is striping. It will combine the space of the 2 drives, so you will have 1.2 TB of drive space. Do however realize if 1 drive fails, you will lose ALL data.

In all honesty, consumers do not need RAID at all. RAID 0 is overhyped, RAID 1 isn't backup.

 

[Cigarjohn]

Thank you for your honesty on this matter. Can you backup your answer?

 

[thebigrobbyrob]

I have to disagree with Raid 0 being overhyped. There is performance gains (windows should boot and shut down faster) but the gains will not be seen everywhere (example being, your games wont run smoother). Honestly, the biggest initial gain you will see is Windows boot times (for me atleast that is a huge win)

If your a numbers guy, look up Raid 0 vs. non-Raid benchies. the data is there.

 

[CrazyKiller]

RAID 0 is striping. It will combine the space of the 2 drives, so you will have 1.2 TB of drive space. Do however realize if 1 drive fails, you will lose ALL data.

In all honesty, consumers do not need RAID at all. RAID 0 is overhyped, RAID 1 isn't backup.

RAID 0 isn't overhyped. It isn't designed to increase the performance of applications/software unless they are hard drive intensive. It was also designed to combine the storage capacity of drives in a system so that the system sees one logical disk.. However, it is the most "dangerous" type of RAID because the data will be lost if even only one drive fails.

Although RAID 1 isn't a backup system, it is a cheap/easy way to secure the integrity of your data in the even of a single hard drive failure.

I have to disagree with Raid 0 being overhyped. There is performance gains (windows should boot and shut down faster) but the gains will not be seen everywhere (example being, your games wont run smoother). Honestly, the biggest initial gain you will see is Windows boot times (for me atleast that is a huge win)

If your a numbers guy, look up Raid 0 vs. non-Raid benchies. the data is there.

RAID 0 is going to be faster in dealing with hard drive specific tasks. For example, as thebigrobbyrob said, you won't see much performance gain in video games with RAID 0, but you will find that Windows loads and searches faster.

RAID 1 (mirrored drives) is nice for a consumer (or non-mission critical) failsafe in the event of a hard drive going bad. If one drive fails, the other drive's data will be intact and you can replace and rebuild the array when you have a replacement. In all honesty, you won't see too much of a performance hit with RAID 1, but there may be some slowdown on the system because of the degraded array.

However, if I were to put together a RAID on my system I would go with RAID10.

 

[reflex99]

i would use the 2 raptors in raid0, you will get about 80% more performance, and it is unlikely that either drive will fail

Then if you are worried about losing a drive, get a third 1.5/2 TB drive to mirror the Raptor array


That would be called "RAID0+1"

 

[forty2skates]

I think RAID 0 on Velociraptors is incredibly short sighted. My personal experience with Raptors ended in heartbreak and the loss of four days worth of data(that took 30+ hours to reproduce). Total drive failure in under a year and RAID 0 increases the chances of loss due to the reliance on two drive to always work. Unless you run a lot of programs that are HD intensive I would recommend getting a SSD boot and a standard 7200 rpm drive, the cost is lower, reliability higher, and Windows should still boot faster.

As to the comment that RAID 1 is not backup, BS. It most certainly serves as backup for drive failure. Having experienced 3 total drive failures personally, RAID 1 is a big safety net for one very specific failure at a minimal cost. As an example, my current set up is 40gb SSD boot, 2 x 1tb 7200 rpm in RAID 1 for all data, 640gb on board nightly backup, 640 gb weekly backup kept in a fireproof safe except for when being updated. Tried NAS, not to long ago, didn't like the results but execution was all wrong, may try again in the not too distant future.

 

[I'm your huckleberry]

Agreed with the last post...ssd os/app drive with a good 7200 rpm mechanical drive would be your best option. That or even one 600gb velociraptor and a crucial c300 128gb would still be cheaper.