Two options.What to choose?
- Thread starter Matas
- Start date
RAID 0 is bad. Double the risk of data loss, and pretty much no gain in performance for the average user.
Frankly I wouldnt buy the aged Raptor though. Many current 7200RPM HDs match and actually surpass it in performance these days.
You're really better off saving a bit, possibly seeing your current HD and upgrading to a more current model with more space.
Frankly I wouldnt buy the aged Raptor though. Many current 7200RPM HDs match and actually surpass it in performance these days.
You're really better off saving a bit, possibly seeing your current HD and upgrading to a more current model with more space.
If you really want a in depth look at Raid 0 then I suggest you read this from Storage Review (a great site, btw): http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0
The problem with Raid 0 is that the data is stripped across the disks, so if one goes then you have lost all of your data, even if the other drive is perfectly fine.
Also know that with Raid 0, unless you're doing HEAVY amount of video editing, or on a regular basis working with huge multi gigabyte files then you're going to see very little improvment in performance.
Really, its not that great of an option. It has its purpose, of course, but when you see those with it in gaming systems, or really those with it in non-video editing (or similair functions) systems then they're wasting money and upping the data loss risk.
The problem with Raid 0 is that the data is stripped across the disks, so if one goes then you have lost all of your data, even if the other drive is perfectly fine.
Also know that with Raid 0, unless you're doing HEAVY amount of video editing, or on a regular basis working with huge multi gigabyte files then you're going to see very little improvment in performance.
Really, its not that great of an option. It has its purpose, of course, but when you see those with it in gaming systems, or really those with it in non-video editing (or similair functions) systems then they're wasting money and upping the data loss risk.
The main thing I need is better files copy time and loading times.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=734&pageID=1211
From this review I see that Raid 0 quite good helps to reduse loading times...
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=734&pageID=1211
From this review I see that Raid 0 quite good helps to reduse loading times...
No, what I suggest you do is not get the Raid 0 setup or the Raptor. Instead I'd suggest that you buy something like the Hitachi Deskstar T7K250.
The older Raptor is actually kinda slow compared to many drives out their today. It really has not aged well at all, and its low size really holds it back with games and such being so large you'll fill it very fast.
I HIGHLY recommend you read this article: http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html
You can pick up the Hitachi T7K250 for around $80, very fast and very nice drive. Also, note in the review how Samsung's HD is consistenly the lowest performer, making it an even worse option for Raid 0.
The older Raptor is actually kinda slow compared to many drives out their today. It really has not aged well at all, and its low size really holds it back with games and such being so large you'll fill it very fast.
I HIGHLY recommend you read this article: http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html
You can pick up the Hitachi T7K250 for around $80, very fast and very nice drive. Also, note in the review how Samsung's HD is consistenly the lowest performer, making it an even worse option for Raid 0.
My HD160JJ in "real world tests" is running really well(in some cases even competing with Raptor740GD). In synthetic tests performance is pure, but I don't care about synthetic tests...
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2454
So, what is the main aspect, that you don't recommend me Raid 0?
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2454
So, what is the main aspect, that you don't recommend me Raid 0?
I personally dont care for Anand, so I'll take their results with a grain of salt.
I dont recommend Raid 0 because it'll offer you not nearly the performance gain you're thinking, and it doubles your risk of data loss. Like I said, if one drive happens to fail then all your data is lost, even if the other drive is fine.
Raid 0 is a bad idea.
I dont recommend Raid 0 because it'll offer you not nearly the performance gain you're thinking, and it doubles your risk of data loss. Like I said, if one drive happens to fail then all your data is lost, even if the other drive is fine.
Raid 0 is a bad idea.
Blazkowicz
Legend
to have both raid 0 and data security, you can do raid 0+1 but you'll need four drives 
Raid 0 is bad due to the following:
One drive failing resulting in data loss
A power spike or sudden loss can damage the array and cause data loss
Performance delta is small and not worth the added risk
Seriously, just get one of the newer 250 or 300 GB SATA drives with 16MB cache. Hitachi makes among the best and fastest.
One drive failing resulting in data loss
A power spike or sudden loss can damage the array and cause data loss
Performance delta is small and not worth the added risk
Seriously, just get one of the newer 250 or 300 GB SATA drives with 16MB cache. Hitachi makes among the best and fastest.