Charlie
Wed May 24 09:36:21 CDT 2006
RAID 0 with 2 disks doubles your risk of total data loss. With 4 disks, it
quadruples it. Etc. Calling this RAID is a total misnomer. It is NOT
redundant, rather the opposite.
All that being said - it IS faster. And it's true, if you had the same
number of disks in the machine, running independently, your risk of failure
is the same. But in the case of independent disks, your exposure to data
loss is only the one disk, not everything. You lose one disk in a RAID 0,
you lose everything on the RAID 0.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
Tony Sperling wrote:
> The predominant view of most professionals seems to be that the magnitude
> of the risks involved automatically disqualify a RAID 0 - my own view is
> that it entirely depends on your needs. If your back-up necessities can
> be easily served by backing up your personal data partition, or whatever
> your setup - I think you might be quite happy, can't vouch for the SCSI
> situation, though.
>
> I had personally invested in a SATA1 HD when I installed x64, it sat next
> to an older IDE drive with Win2K in a dual-boot system. But I was quite
> dismayed that the IDE drive was actually faster than the SATA - less than
> marginal difference, but the SATA was not faster as I had expected. I then
> bought a twin drive for the SATA and set up a RAID 0 and the throughput
> almost doubled while having full use of the doubled volume space as well.
> This is good economy for my investment, I think.
>
> Now for the if's and but's:
>
> The danger of actually having an error can be disputed, i'm sure. The more
> disks you employ, the bigger the risk of having one of them go bad, but I
> do not believe that your risk of loosing data is bigger with a RAID 0
> than it would be on a system with two separate non-RAID'ed drives, but
> there is no question that if you have an error on a RAID 0 you stand to
> loose everything, not just the bad disk! It is also difficult (often
> impossible) to transfer to a new or rebuilt system.
>
> So, it is a question of where you want to put your redundancy - to reep
> for speed and volume? or to reep for safety, because with the RAID
> formats of an order for which it was originally intended, you can simply
> toss a bad drive/drives and replace it with a new one, and you will have
> lost nothing - this naturally is extremely good economy if you run a
> business where you gamble with your customer data-base for example.
>
> If you do any kind of professional computing, and seeing that you already
> have a SCSI setup, my recommendation would be to invest in a third drive
> and set up a higher order RAID where you can have it both ways, not as
> big a speed bonus as RAID 0 and you waste some space but you retain
> complete safety. I think especially in your situation with the initial
> investment already taken care of that a third drive would be a relatively
> small investment for a big bonus return.
>
> ---------
>
> "An author needs at least one reader - two would be better, because then
> they can disagree!"
>
> ---------
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
> "Larry Hodges" <2larry2@2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote in message
> news:6LudnYzc-55OhenZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Charlie, do you know much about RAID0? Is it stable and secure? I'm
>> running SCSI, and my Adaptec card supports it. I was thinking about
>> picking up another 15k HD and doing .RAID0, but I've heard it's not as
>> reliable as a single disk.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:%233mCJ3sfGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> You need a _different_ F6 driver than your x64 installation, but you
>>> absolutely _need_ a driver.
>>>
>>> I would strongly recommend making a complete backup of your system
>>> before going forward. Use a USB hard drive, or additional internal hard
>>> drive, but get your system backed up before you start messing around
>>> with RAID0. Also, do NOT attempt to install 32-bit XP onto the same
>>> partition that
>>> currently holds x64 XP unless you format the partition.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>>
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
>>>
>>> Trask needs HELP! wrote:
>>>> I am attempting to dump x64 and install XP Pro. I have a clean install
>>>> version of XP Pro, during install my computer tells me that it is not
>>>> detecting any usable HD's. I have two SATA HD's intalled in a RAID 0
>>>> array. This array is set up correctly and running flawlessly under the
>>>> x64 edition OS. (It's about the only thing that works the way I want
>>>> it in x64!) I have attempted the F6 function repeateadly and
>>>> installed the correct RAID drivers during the install of XP Pro, this
>>>> does not fave any
>>>> effect. My problem had nothing to do with the boot sequence as I have
>>>> it
>>>> set to boot from C.D. primary and the install begins from the XP Pro
>>>> C.D.
>>>> just fine. PLEASE HELP!