1X500GB or 2x250GB RAID-0?

HenryJ said:
Surely it is better and safer and cheaper to just get a 500GB 7200.11 and have done with all this RAID debate?
Click to expand...
But why?

If I know that all I'm gonna to be keeping on my RAID drive is my OS, apps and other easily replaceable software then I'd rather squeeze out as much performance out of my hardware as possible.

As soon as my OS is loaded and apps/updates installed, I'll just clone the drive and keep that image safe somewhere. It's dumb to use a RAID drive for storage (LOL :D) but if it's just gonna house the OS and other software essentials then it certainly IS better to RAID it, no?
 
feo said:
But why?

If I know that all I'm gonna to be keeping on my RAID drive is my OS, apps and other easily replaceable software then I'd rather squeeze out as much performance out of my hardware as possible.

As soon as my OS is loaded and apps/updates installed, I'll just clone the drive and keep that image safe somewhere. It's dumb to use a RAID drive for storage (LOL :D) but if it's just gonna house the OS and other software essentials then it certainly IS better to RAID it, no?
Click to expand...

But then you'd need 2 x 7200.11 which is gonna cost you as much as 1 x raptor :eek:
 
HenryJ said:
But then you'd need 2 x 7200.11 which is gonna cost you as much as 1 x raptor :eek:
Click to expand...
And how much space does that Raptor offer me?

Also, reviews on Newegg/Amazon and numerous other sites say the 7200.11s are excellent drives in terms of speed, with RAID they'll shine even more.
 
not really

2 x 80 gig drives should set you back 900 bucks, a new raptor is about 1.8k

you dont store info on a raid array

you stores windows programs, if it crashes so what, its just matter of reloading :)

it does not crash often anyhow, it crashes as much as using a single drives

henry what if that 500gb crashes?
 
quik said:
You don't "just risk losing info" as information in this case is everything. Failure of one drive in this instance makes the other drive obsolete until it's re-setup, so in essence it also fails, costing you time and effort to get back to a productive state again.

It's simple mathematics, lets assume the factory defect failure rate of Seagate drives to be 10% (which is probably not that far off from reality)

10% x 1 HDD = 10% chance
10% x 2 HDD = 20% chance

That's double the possibility of a failure occuring, and is a perfectly legitimate calculation seeing as you are combining two hard drives into one logical partition.
Click to expand...

with your logic, If I RAID 10 drives, there is a 100% of failure? lol

I have been in IT for over 10 years. I have only experienced 2 hard drive crashes in the field. none personally.
 
killadoob said:
not really

2 x 80 gig drives should set you back 900 bucks, a new raptor is about 1.8k

you dont store info on a raid array

you stores windows programs, if it crashes so what, its just matter of reloading :)

it does not crash often anyhow, it crashes as much as using a single drives

henry what if that 500gb crashes?
Click to expand...

Well uif the 500GB crashes in the RAID array it does not matter cos like you said it only has windows and the like on it...

I would just go with the 1 x 500GB. Should run stuff fast and you can even use a part of it for data if you want...
 
feo said:
And how much space does that Raptor offer me?

Also, reviews on Newegg/Amazon and numerous other sites say the 7200.11s are excellent drives in terms of speed, with RAID they'll shine even more.
Click to expand...

Ok, if you want to shell out that much money then the 2 x 500GB is the way to go I guess. :p
 
HenryJ said:
Well uif the 500GB crashes in the RAID array it does not matter cos like you said it only has windows and the like on it...

I would just go with the 1 x 500GB. Should run stuff fast and you can even use a part of it for data if you want...
Click to expand...
Ummmm, didn't you just say yesterday you were gonna try out RAID?

Why the change of heart now? :o
 
500gb is not a great idea for windows

even if i didnt run raid 0 i would still run an 80gb drive with only my installs on it

see if your windows drives crashes its nice to be able to format knowing your not losing anything, if you keep data on it, you have to take it out pull the data off, if there is no data you just format reload and 3 hours later your back up and running
 
feo said:
Ummmm, didn't you just say yesterday you were gonna try out RAID?

Why the change of heart now? :o
Click to expand...

Cos of the cost implications...

It seems to get the best out of RAID you need the 7200.11's which are 500GB and close to R1000 each where I can get them...I couldn't imagine spending that much on drives that won't have any data on.

The same can be said of spending that much on a raptor.
 
feo said:
Like killadoob says, a new Raptor is R1.8k while 2x500GBs will set you back about the same price.
Click to expand...

Yip. I just wouldn't want to shell out that much either way, which is why I would be happy with the 1 x 500GB which should make Windows run a bit faster at least and I can still throw some data on there at some stage if I have to :)
 
HenryJ said:
Cos of the cost implications...

It seems to get the best out of RAID you need the 7200.11's which are 500GB and close to R1000 each where I can get them...I couldn't imagine spending that much on drives that won't have any data on.

The same can be said of spending that much on a raptor.
Click to expand...

The 11 series Seagates come in lower capacities too you know. ;)
 
kevinswan007 said:
with your logic, If I RAID 10 drives, there is a 100% of failure? lol
Click to expand...

Well when you put it like that it makes sense. But you cant deny that if you have 2 drives raided and one fails then you loose 100% data whereas if they were separate then you would loose 50% data, so the risk is still higher.
 
Slight hijack here, but if you were just to get 1 x 500GB and put Windows on there, and other data, would it be better for performance to partition the drive or just throw it all on there? Or won't it make much difference?
 
dam said:
Well when you put it like that it makes sense. But you cant deny that if you have 2 drives raided and one fails then you loose 100% data whereas if they were separate then you would loose 50% data, so the risk is still higher.
Click to expand...

no dam, if you run raid you should not lose anything but your windows install

raid can fail for others such as mobo dying, end of raid array all data gone

if you run raid and keep data files on it you need your head read :)

raid 0 = windows and installs only

henry i find the more you clog up a windows hdd with kuk the slower windows runs
i dont like partitioning my windows drive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X