Jump to content
towhog66

i am thinking about Raiding my HDD

Recommended Posts

I have a SSD on the way :cheers: so i am thinking about using my 2 WD 7200 rpms 16MB Cache in Raid 0. But I have a lot of data on my 2nd hhd that I don't want to lose, so I'm asking well it be lost if i raid them?

Edited by towhog66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not go raid 0 if you would like to keep your data.

Raid 0 if something goes wrong everything is lost no redundancies, don't even bother with it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I keep my data backed up once a week so I really don't worry about losing data. I have mine in Raid 0, and have had it for over 3 years with no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to create a raid you need them both blank and once raided if one fails you lose all your data so i suggest you either do raid1 for redundancy (which is slower than a single drive) or back up your data weekly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bother with RAID 0. If anything, do RAID 1 since you don't want to lose your data. Just use the software RAID 1 built into Windows...just make sure you don't mirror the wrong drive. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too easy but : will it be a 40 or 60 man raid?

 

XD

 

Oh OCC how I love you, a place where every forum and sub-forum is the Members Lounge :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not go raid 0 if you would like to keep your data.

Raid 0 if something goes wrong everything is lost no redundancies, don't even bother with it at all.

 

Don't bother with RAID 0. If anything, do RAID 1 since you don't want to lose your data. Just use the software RAID 1 built into Windows...just make sure you don't mirror the wrong drive. :lol:

 

 

RAID 0 is perfectly fine. If a HDD fails in a non-RAID setup, there's a chance that it's going to be just as unrecoverable as a RAID 0 pair where one fails. Not using RAID 0 due to the increased chance of hardware failure simply due to that fact that you are adding a new hard drive into the equation is almost the same as driving a car with 1 wheel because of the increased chance of a blowout if you use 4 wheels.

 

I've used RAID 0 for several years and have had no issues whatsoever and many other people I know who did the same in the past who have moved onto SSD's can echo my sentiment.

 

tl;dr: Suggesting against RAID 0 for failure risk increase reasons is illogical, based in opinion, and should not be used to scare people away from using it.

 

As for the question in the topic, if you've got stuff on one of those hard drives, you'll lose all of that data when you RAID them together.

Edited by Nephilumos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neph - I completely agree with your post. I run RAID0 because I can and because it has never given me a single issue in all the years I've ran it. Does it really improve the day to day performance of my computer? No..... but I like to think it does :) And again, the most important reason is that I can. I loved your analogy about the car and four wheels.

 

Back when many HDD manufacturer's rated their drives in MTBF some of them (WD Enterprise and Black Edition Drives) had MTBF ratings of like 1.2M hours. So even if you cut that in 1/2 it's still 600,000 hours MTBF based on their statistics and internal testing results. So that is still like 68 years. That may be why some manufacturer's (WD for example) began using Component Design Life as the metric instead.

 

My formula for RAID is simple;

Take the warranty period of a single drive and divide in 1/2 and figure that's about when I need to start worrying about a replacement

Have a good backup strategy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a good backup strategy

I was trying to point out that running RAID 1 would be a better idea in this case, not that RAID 0 is super risky or anything. The OP doesn't seem to have a real need to run RAID 0 and the increased risk of data loss doesn't warrant the use IMHO (not in this situation) considering that he's got data he doesn't want to lose and, from what I can tell, no current backup strategy.

 

 

I ran RAID 0 for years and never had any issues until I ran my SSDs in RAID 0 and one of them went wonky. Thankfully I had numerous backups but it was a pain trying to get it all sorted out when one of the drives started to produce errors (random crashes, hitches, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID 1 is better IMO for HDD's due to the slightly faster disk access time and reads, though you lose half your space you would get in RAID 0.

 

For SSD's, definitely RAID 0. The performance gain for RAID 0 for SSD's is substantially better than RAID 0 for HDD's.

 

I do have two systems with RAID 0 for data storage with SSD's, but because SSD's are more reliable. I do backups of that data, so I'm not worried about data loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID 1 is better IMO for HDD's due to the slightly faster disk access time and reads, though you lose half your space you would get in RAID 0.

With a good controller the RAID 1 should be just as fast as RAID 0 for reading and roughly as fast as a single drive for writing. I would say the stock AMD/Intel controller falls under the category of "good", at least for a few drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×