RAID 0 impressions

8

8-BALL

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
619
Reaction score
28
Location
CPT SS
Hey all just a quick question, for those of you with a RAID 0 config with SATA dirves:
1. What kind of reliability do you have?
2. Have you ever had a drive failure?
3. If the system is OC'ed is there a tangible risk of the array corrupting itself?

Thanks you responses are greatly appreciated :D
 
I use RAID 1 (Mirroring), and it provided 26% faster loading times for the battlefield2 game, this was measured and proven by me.
I did not test the "write to disk" time.

My PC suffered a UPS failure and my raided disk got a bad sector in it on critical os files, xp refused to boot, and there was nothing in the bios menu to fix the problem, but a chkdsk fixed that problem.

RAID 0 is waay too risky in my mind, like Gravity said, the more disks in a RAID 0, the greater the risk, but I recon the performance boost could be similar to my configuration.
 
As long as you don't use Maxtor drives, chances of failing are very slim, but yes... the more drives the bigger the chance of failure.
I use 2 x 300Gb Seagate drives in hardware RAID0 for video editing, but not for storeage of valuable stuff.
 
i've used raid 0 for about 3 years

never had anything bad happen

been running raptor raid for about 6 months, same story

raid 0 is amazing i love it

stoke you want to cut your load times in half with bf 2 load up vista 64 bit

try not to use huge hdd's for raid 0, 160 and lower because raid 0 should not be used for storage, raid 0 should be used for OS and installs nothing more because 1 drive fails your whole raid array is stuffed
 
Since about late 2004 i've been using a raid setup also on my home pc's. It works a trick with two raptors(old school 36gb raptors) in raid0.
The speed benefits are quite impressive with reduced loading times for games, improved windows startup speeds and just general "ooh and aah" factor :)

Just remember not to keep any valuable data on that hdd though or if you do then make sure you have a backup policy in place so that in case of a failure you can still get your data back.

If ure running xp and really really want to be the king of speed, then there is just one option for you. I-RAM from gigabyte. gawd that stuff is fast :)
 
RAID 1 is a better option for most home users. Along with redundancy, with newer onboard controllers you get the benefit of increased read speed. The only down side is you only get half the space of a RAID 0 config, however with HDs being so cheap it's not really an issue. I would only use RAID 0 for applications like video editing where the increased write speed and extra storage space would be useful.
 
8-BALL said:
Hey all just a quick question, for those of you with a RAID 0 config with SATA dirves:
1. What kind of reliability do you have?
2. Have you ever had a drive failure?
3. If the system is OC'ed is there a tangible risk of the array corrupting itself?

Thanks you responses are greatly appreciated :D
Click to expand...

Been Running RAID-0 for about a decade now. Apart from a drive failure (not caused by RAID) resulting is double the data loss, it has never gone wrong for me.

used VIA, SI and Nforce chipsets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X