raid or no raid?

[supasoaker]

I am looking at a 2 disk configuration. Rather than loose the total redundancy with a RAID 0 would there be performance benefit if I simply used both on their own SATA cable and managed it such that the read load for any programs/data running would be equally dispersed?

Redundancy isn't an issue I am looking more at performance. High performance hard drives seem to offer very fast transfer rates which if dedicated to running a single program should offer a performance benefit over using a single HDD for all of the load?

Any help much appreciated.

 

[supasoaker]

FYI: even in RAID - both drives still need their own SATA cable .

Raid0 generally increases the drives speed by 15 - 25%.
As you know, RAID1 allows you to mirror a drive. If redundancy isnt a problem then i'd stick two drives in RAID0 for the slight performance benefit.

Keeping them as separate drives looses this benefit.

Thanks.

Sure they would need their own cables anyway, but a HDD going direct to the southbridge controller and running a dedicated program would also show performance benefits no?

If one drive fails in RAID0 can data still be taken off the other drive?

 

[supasoaker]

Remember that RAID 1, 10, 5 etc are not backup, everything can still screw up. It's just a way to keep your system running if a disk fails.

thats a good one thanks...