RAID, is it worth it? Created 18 years ago2006-08-02 18:24:27 UTC by RotatorSplint

I plan to build a new computer, and I found a 200 GB SATA hard drive for 80 dollars, and I was wondering, is it worth it to get a second one and set them up for RAID? I dont know if its a new concept or somthing and because of that, its unreliable. I'm leaning towards getting the 2nd one, but It's just that I dont want to drop an extra 80 dollars on somthing that may not work properly.

We just told you no! Fewl.

Of course, I don't know anything about it, but I like to appear to know what I'm talking about.

I don't even know what it is, can someone enlighten me as to how it works?

RAID is a very old way to manage drives.

There're are 3 kinds of RAID.

Striped: This places one track on one drive and the next track on the other, alternating between drives. This allows you to fetch data about 2x as fast as you can from 1 drive.

Mirrored: This takes one drive and makes an exact copy on the other drive. You have the space of only 1 drive, but if any of the drives die, the other can take over on the fly.

Striped and mirrored: This takes 4 drives to do. It is a mirror of 2 drives that are striped.

In computing, RAID (a redundant array of inexpensive disks, also later known as redundant array of independent disks) is a system which uses multiple hard drives to share or replicate data among the drives. Depending on the version chosen, the benefit of RAID is one or more of increased data integrity, fault-tolerance, throughput or capacity compared to single drives. In its original implementations, its key advantage was the ability to combine multiple low-cost devices using older technology into an array that offered greater capacity, reliability, speed, or a combination of these things, than was affordably available in a single device using the newest technology.

It's not very old. IIRC it's used today, mainly for servers and data backup.

RAID isn't bad. nor is it unreliable. raid is good when used properly.

but, even if you don't raid them, get that second 200 anyway, you'll need it eventually.

DarkK is right about the types of RAID you'd find currently 'standard' for the consumer market, RAID 0 (Striped), RAID 1 (Mirrored) and RAID 0+1 (Striped 'n Mirrored). I've seen a couple of boards that even have RAID 5.

But just FYI, if anyones interested, I actually found out on Wikipedia that there are nearly TWO DOZEN types of RAID setting. Here's the link.

RAID is very old. Doesn't mean it's obsolete.

RAID0 is about double-performance, but, 'cos you have two drives involved, there's twice the chance of a failure. RAID1 is same-performance, but half the chance of data loss, because everything is written twice. Few people use that at home, though, I'd say. I'll be RAID0ing when I get my 2x300GBs soon.

RAID0+1 (not the same as RAID1+0, if that's the right way to write the other one) has a minimum, I believe, of three disks: two of which are set up in RAID0 (performance advantage) with the third storing some backup data.

Definitely use it, anyway! RAID0 for gamin' an stuff.

Ew, RAID 0 (yeah I'm a bit of a hypocrit). RAID 5 on the other hand is rather nice.

Unless you have some kind of storage need for it, stick with the simple and usually better method, have a 10k low space drive like a WD raptor 75gig for windows+swapfile and programs and a larger slower disk for media and all your other shit

You dont really get double performance with raid0, especially when games are concerned

Taken from Answers.com:

It is also a popular choice for gaming systems where performance is desired, data integrity is not very important, but cost is a consideration to most users

Its pretty convincing comming from Answers.com

Answers takes most of its information from that infallible source of truth, wikipedia

Jobabob: how not? I can't see, from how I think I've worked out RAID works (block-wise and all) that performance couldn't be greatly increased. I mean, aside from stupid stuff.

My opinion comes from a load of articles I read a few months back when I was deciding to go for RAID or not (for increased performance), most conclusions I read were that its not worth the hassle - just apply the old adage of a small 10k drive for programs and larger slower drive for everything else. Also, despite my nightly full backups, not using RAID0 means you dont have to worry about the increased probability of failure.

Well, I'm not gunna fork out for a 10k drive.

How about NTFS cluster sizes? How much of an effect do they have? I understand the theory behind them, and always tinker with them for different partitions, but is there really any point?

Unless you're running some kind of database or method of large storage retrieval, leave well alone. The default is usually the best (unlike the default of most windows things). My 10k 75gig drive was only 80 quid, so its hardly that much when you can pair it with whatever cheap storage you want for large media.