which is faster??

The sustained transfer rate of the RAIDed pair will be significantly quicker than the 150Gb drive, the average seek time of the 150 will probably be a smidge better but not much. In real world terms the RAIDed pair will probably be faster.

I assume you're aware of the downsides of running a RAID0 array?
 
It's not just a case of a drive failing and the array breaking. I've had situations in the past where a drive has been slow to spin up and the entire contents of the array has been lost.

RAID0 has it's benefits but you need to understand the risks and take precautions in case of failure - backups are important!
 
No I didn't say that, if it was that bad I wouldn't be using it.

You just need to be aware of the risks and make an informed decision as to whether it's the right solution for you. Normally that would be based around knowing how you would recover if the RAID did fail - ie how you'd get stuff back from a backup.
 
In your case if you just put windows and apps on the RAID 0, and it all goes wrong, the worst you have to face is a busy weekend rebuilding and reinstalling. Have a 500GB disk for data, and the RAID for boot/apps.

Not that I am an expert, certainly not compared to the RAID 5 people here :) , but that is how I understand it.
 
I've never had a RAID0 fail, but of course anything can happen. I would recommend using a backup program like Acronis True Image Home or similar.

Probably going to move to a 4 drive RAID5 soon though...
 
rpstewart said:
Your understanding is correct, sir. Use the RAID0 array for what it's good at and use something else for what it isn't good at. Whether that's an extra internal disk or and external one is up to you.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks.

Offtopic - your gallery looks good, rpstewart, might have to purchase some of those prints for my flat :) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom