raid or not?

Pros of raid 0

Faster reading and writing

Cons of raid 0

If one drive fails you use loose all the data over the whole array (all 1TB)

or looking from the other end

Pros of 2 seperate unraided drives

If one drive fails the data on the other continues to be accessable.

Cons of 2 seperate drives

A single write can not be split up and written to both drives to double the throughput speed of the write. Its written to one or the other and thus the speed to do such a write is the speed of the drive written too, that is slower than if you write half of it to one drive whilst at same time writing the other half to a 2nd drive (which is what raid 0 does essentialy).

So basically you make you choice based on what your priorites are. You get more performance with raid 0 but any drive failure takes out all your data on both drives. Less perfomance with seperate drioves but if a single drive fails you only loose the data on that drive alone.
 
I've raided up my two, old WD black drives. And I'm benifiting from the performance increaces. Its a nice cheap way to get slightly more performance from the slowest part of your computer - well what my winsat tests show.

Only thing is data loss, but then again, if their identical drives, bought at the same time, and used for around the same time, then chances are if one of them fails, the other one won't be far behind.

Plus, if you make a backup onto an external drive of your current disk image, you can go back to non raid faily quickly.
 
In my experience RAID 0 of mechanical drives gives nice benchmark numbers and makes you feel l33t, nothing more.
 
Actually, saying what I've said, Just checked my hdd performance, minimum of 3.2mb/s maximum of 63.7mb/s. - Although these are 2 year old drives.
 
Back
Top Bottom