How Could I Improve This? Help Me Out =)

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 14:57

Ideally, you would have a third, external, hdd to back on (in fact ideally you would have 3 hdd's and use RAID 5 - but i digress.). All you need to back up on the dvd are the files that are important to you - My docs, favourites, games saves, patches, music etc. That way, like any other setup, if your hdd's fail you're data is safe.

It's probably no different to what you do now - i only stress this fact because RAIS 0 uses 2 drives and so it increases the chances of the system failing as it only takes one drive to shut RAID 0 down.

Basically, if you back up regularly anyway - it wont be a problem.

citycm · 23 May 2009 at 15:00

If you went for the 2 x 250GB (for the RAID0) and a 500GB for Backup, you can get free software that will make complete clones of your 2 x 250GB Raid setup to your backup drive, and you can set the software to do this automatically at intervals (such as every week). That way, you don't really have to think about it too much.

Alternatively, as Plec suggested, you can use DVD-r's to backup your data - you would backup just your work/data files rather than the entire hard drives as dvd-r's are only 4.7GB (9.4GB if you go for Dual Layer).

citycm · 23 May 2009 at 15:02

Plec said:
...in fact ideally you would have 3 hdd's and use RAID 5 - but i digress...

Sorry to jump on this thread but could you explain how RAID5 works? I have just built a system with 3 hard drives and am looking to RAID them but currently (slowly) learning.

max76249 · 23 May 2009 at 15:05

Okay. I like the idea of this free software, as I'm a very forgetful person =S But, if one of them does crash, then I have to buy a new one?

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:09

Very quickly - RAID 5 has the some of the benifits of RAID 0 in that your data will be retrievd faster but it has the benefit of full data redundancy - should one of the drives break down.

3 drives is the minimum requirement for RAID 5 - it's basically far safer.

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:10

max76249 said:
Okay. I like the idea of this free software, as I'm a very forgetful person =S But, if one of them does crash, then I have to buy a new one?

Trouble is max you need 3 drives for that setup plus the software - i thought you only had £70?

If you do you're way over your budget with that spec.

max76249 · 23 May 2009 at 15:13

Fair enough. Didn't really look at the price. I think I'll avoid that, as I would much rather not have to repeatedly back up my files. I still don't know what to put my cash towards then.

citycm · 23 May 2009 at 15:14

Plec said:
Trouble is max you need 3 drives for that setup plus the software - i thought you only had £70?

If you do you're way over your budget with that spec.

Well he's already got his 500GB hard drive in his spec and he can get something like the Seagate Barracuda 250GB for £36.98 each which would only take him £4 over budget.

citycm · 23 May 2009 at 15:15

max76249 said:
OK, it sounds good, I like the idea of faster retrieving time. But as I asked, what are the chances of the HDD breaking down, and if it does, would I have to buy a new one?

If the hard drive breaks down, you would have the manufacturers guarantee to fall back on, the same as if you just used the one hard drive. Chances of it breaking down are fairly slim though.

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:16

Well if it broke - yes. But i was alluding more that if a drive became corrupted you would have to do a re-install so you would lose all unsaved data.

The facts are you would have 2 drives running your OS - so if one becomes corrupt it's a re-install. And because it's running on 2 drives, tecnically, your twice as likely for one to have an error (just like any other drive)

max76249 · 23 May 2009 at 15:17

Okay, well that would only put me over by £10, if I put two:

Western Digital Caviar Blue 250GB SATA-II 16MB Cache - OEM (WD2500AAKS) @ 40.24

Sounds reasonable, what do you guys think?

max76249 · 23 May 2009 at 15:19

Wait, this is all beginning to confuse me. Let me establish something:

I would have two 250GB HDD's and one 500GB drive and the setup would be RAID 5.
If one of the 250GB HDD's failed, then so would the other one, and my files would be corrupt.
However, as I have the 500GB to back it up, then I would just need to send for the new 250GB HDD's, re-install them, and then transfer the data back and I would be fine?

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:21

citycm said:
Well he's already got his 500GB hard drive in his spec and he can get something like the Seagate Barracuda 250GB for £36.98 each which would only take him £4 over budget.

No, it's his first builld - that's his spec for this build.

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:22

max76249 said:
Wait, this is all beginning to confuse me. Let me establish something:

I would have two 250GB HDD's and one 500GB drive and the setup would be RAID 5.
If one of the 250GB HDD's failed, then so would the other one, and my files would be corrupt.
However, as I have the 500GB to back it up, then I would just need to send for the new 250GB HDD's, re-install them, and then transfer the data back and I would be fine?

No - ignore RAID 5 that was citycm question - although you could run that with 3 x 250 hdd's.

If you want RAID 0 the 2 x 250 gigs with a 500 gig ghosting an image would be great.

Just re-read my posts regarding the RAID 0 option...

I'm knackered...

citycm · 23 May 2009 at 15:25

max76249 said:
Wait, this is all beginning to confuse me. Let me establish something:

I would have two 250GB HDD's and one 500GB drive and the setup would be RAID 5.
If one of the 250GB HDD's failed, then so would the other one, and my files would be corrupt.
However, as I have the 500GB to back it up, then I would just need to send for the new 250GB HDD's, re-install them, and then transfer the data back and I would be fine?

If one hard drive dies, the 2nd doesn't automatically die too. you just lose the data off it because parts of the same file are stored across both drives. You would only have to return the one 250GB drive.

As plec said though, it's very unlikely to die and you might just get corrupt files in which case you would just need to do a reinstall.

Plec said:
No, it's his first builld - that's his spec for this build.

Yeah but he's already budgeted for that 500GB hard drive, so that wouldn't be coming out of the £70 he has left over.

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:27

Ah, my bad - i'm starting to lose track myself.

Agreed, it looks as though he can afford it - max you just have to make a decision - i suggest you read up on it a but more before you commit yourself - but the principal is sound.

kerrgreg · 23 May 2009 at 15:29

I would go with raid 0 or look at getting a 2nd hand Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB or 150gb as these are very fast drives or get one a 1tb spin point f1 you dont need the space but it is a very fast drive.

Plec · 23 May 2009 at 15:30

Your £70 would certainly be well spent - and discussed

max76249 · 23 May 2009 at 15:32

OK. Sounds interesting but rather complicated. I don't know, it all sounds rather unecessary to be honest. I mean, for making access time a little faster, it sounds like an awful lot of work. And I'm sure for high-spec builds it's important, but for a first-timer I don't think I need to worry about it. I would rather just buy a slightly better component in an area, for a simple upgrade: as I said I'm not very intelligent when it comes to PC's. Any suggestions?

max76249 · 23 May 2009 at 15:35

My above post sounds a bit rude now I read it through. I'm sorry if it does, I didn't intend it to, it's just it does sound rather complicated for my build. I appreciate all of the information you've provided me with, I really do, and I did look into the RAID 0 setup, but as said it did rather confuse me, which is why I'd like to avoid it. I'll look into a different HDD, but I'm definately going to avoid the RAID 0 setup.