RAID'ing 2 drives

dr4g0nf1y · 6 Oct 2009 at 12:18

I've decided to have 2 500GB drives in RAID0 for win7 and maybe perhaps backup the needed files manually on a third drive.

I had decided to go with the Samsung F3's but over the last couple of days I've decided to go with some WD blacks as I've always found the larger cache helps.

I've never used RAID before but I want to try something different but my steam folder is too large for a 128GB SSD and I don't like pre-ordering a product with no eta.

I have a Formula Crosshair III motherboard with 2 Sata's occupied by High def read and a dvd/rw drive so I have 3 Sata's left.

Would it be fine setting up the RAID straight off this board and also is there anything I'm overlooking with the blacks?

cheers

dr4g0nf1y · 8 Oct 2009 at 13:27

I think I've now decided to forget the idea of having a back up drive on this computer an just store everything I need back ups off on another computer.

thus I'm planning on have 3 drives in RAID 0. would this actually be an improvement or will certain aspects be slower?

Jimbo Mahoney · 8 Oct 2009 at 13:32

You mention Steam, so I'm assuming you are going RAID for games and general use?

If so, just to let you know that it might not be as good as you expect:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17958445

I was disappointed when going RAID 0 for games, basically getting 10 - 20% faster load times when I had hoped for at least 50% faster (given that benchmarks indicate ~100% faster).

dr4g0nf1y · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:02

I can't remember what my speeds were for the drive I've got currently but I just want drive speeds to be faster and perform better than what it is now.

If I happen to spend £150 on 3x 500gb drives and have faster than a single drive then fantastic. It's better than spending £400 or so for a single 250gb.

LeJosh · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:15

I wouldn't go in with that attitude, yes it does speed things up but RAID 0 has next to no fault tolerancy and if you have precious data all drives on that array will die if one dies. As far as I'm aware.

Talbs13 · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:32

There is ways to get some data back if it fails. But LeJosh is right, you are risking losing data if you decide to go ahead with RAID 0.

Admiral Huddy · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:34

If you are using three drives, why not use RAID-5 which is RAID 0 with the added benefit of parity for extra security.

Guest2 · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:37

Admiral Huddy said:
If you are using three drives, why not use RAID-5 which is RAID 0 with the added benefit of parity for extra security.

Agreed. Do this. If one goes down then you dont lose anything, but still get the speed

LeJosh · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:46

How much slower is RAID-5 to a pure RAID-0 array? With parity data being moved about I've been told it is slower but much more fault tolerant.

Admiral Huddy · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:48

LeJosh said:
How much slower is RAID-5 to a pure RAID-0 array? With parity data being moved about I've been told it is slower but much more fault tolerant.

I've noticed little perfomance difference between RAID 5 and RAID 0 tbh. If it's benchmarks you're interested in, then you'd have to do some digging around for differences. Personally, I like the fact that you can have fault tolerant stripped disks.

LeJosh · 8 Oct 2009 at 14:53

I'm not bothered about benchmarks just like you said fault tolerant striped disks are great. Just wondering if it had a noticeable difference.