Of Course Dear Commandatore I agree but I Didn't Trust Samsung, but this is only my opinion. Besides the Sprintpoint F1 is a 500GB for the same price.......Ill get the 640GB WD. Anyway SSD invasion is at the Door. Its only my opinions, again
And you trust your RAID0? Do you have another 640GB spare to back that RAID0 up? If not, you're asking for trouble. Incidentally, I have 2x 1TB F1s, and they've both been faultless. Why do you not trust the F1s? Furthermore, why should it even matter if you trust them or not? If you had a back up of your drives it shouldn't matter. Even with SSD you'll still need a back up strategy It will be a few years yet before SSDs are large enough, and cheap enough to replace the 4TB of disk space I have here.... and I'll still probably want mechanical drives as my back up drives even should I use all SSDs inside the rig.
I know friend who run Raid0 with no matter since couple years, If you know what you do why not ? Besides the black has a 5 Y Warranty. Anyway I can do a Backup with Floppy ^^
I'm with you there... I have seven 1TB drives, of which are split: Main drive Full drive backup of main Full drive backup of main Selective "robocopy" backup of main (just music + photos) Virtual Machines, Media, eBooks etc Backup of 5 Spare / Scratch - Often used to allow a cleanup of a drive. I'm probably going to pull out of the drives and replace it with a 256GB SSD. So that will give me a bit of a different split but actually be a bit more efficient of space by forcing me to keep my c partition below 256
Does anyone have figures/graph for an F1 vs 2xF1 on a good raid controller? ... I am wondering what kind of speed-up you can expect?
A single Electro Magtnetic Flow generated by a little Nuclear reaction and adios EL Bachupos ^^ lolll
If there's a EM Pulse strong enough to delete a hard drive.... then my back-up status is the least of my worries Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that require a minimum of 4 disks? Why not just run RAID0 if you must... and do regular scheduled backups?
all i can say is ive never had any of my drives fail on me and my Samsung F3's in raid is not slightly quicker but a good Deal quicker than a single drive.
The Last HD I saw Fail was a WD2500JS 250GB Caviar SE (now Blue) Manifactured the 4 January 2007 K.I.A 22 November 2009 named Local Drive C: ^^
I've got a Seagate drive that had re-allocated sectors out of the box, and develops more at a rate of 5 a month. I shall retire it soon. It's 8 months old. Drives fail. Fact. If you've not been bitten yet, you're lucky. Having the data spread across 2 drives increases that risk. I'm not saying now, or have ever said that RAID0 is dangerous.... just more dangerous. If you have a robust back up strategy it's irrelevant anyway. My argument was that if all you can afford is 2 drives, and you have a choice of striping both of them... or using one as a back up (either as a separate drive, or as redundancy in RAID1) then the latter option is probably best. If you have a third drive to back up your RAID0 drives.... then knock yourselves out. As for speed.. I still don't think the advantage is worth the pay off in terms of reliability if all you have are those 2 drives and no back up... which is what the OP was proposing. With adequate backup, then any speed advantage is a speed advantage.. sure. Anyone got a HD Tach graph of a Samsung F1 RAID0?
Absolutely to all of the above, two 640's and use one as a backup! you will definitely be thinking thank f*ck if one of them dies knowing you backed everything up. Make that 3 of us! I've lost everything before now due to having no backup, a mistake I will NEVER make again
I have 2xF1's which I tried for a while in RAID 0, but was disappointed -- I suspect because my RAID controller (onboard was not great - JMicron® JMB363 PATA and SATA controller). What RAID card do you run? Do you have any numbers?
Ok is it just me or does the above post sound like your saying don't have 2 drives because that doubles the risk of failure? But hang on a second if you have 2 hard drives and only one fails you still have an exact backup of what you lost on the 2nd hard drive (if used as a backup drive) so the fact is having 2 drives doesn't just double the risk of failure it means you have double the chance of keeping all of the data you had on whichever drive fails meaning it's much better to have 2 drives than one as if you have 1 drive and it fails then where is your backup? Answer: NOWHERE! Having a 2nd hard drive as a backup makes perfect sense and if/when 1 of the 2 fails then simply get another 1 and copy everything from the surviving hard drive to the new drive and there you have it a brand new backup drive, so if the one your left with also dies you've already covered your back by making another backup of your files .
Yes... you're right, but I was talking about RAID0 where you are essentially using 2 drives for a performance gain. Use 2x drives in RAID0 and you you lose data from both if one fails.... it's the OPPOSITE of having a backup drive. I wasn't saying having 2 drives is dangerous. I said 2 drives in RAID0 is more dangerous, because if one fails, you lose the data on BOTH. I do wish people would read I have loads of drives here. I have an internal back up drive for my first stage scheduled back up. That's mirrored to an external drive, then that's mirrored to an offsite drive. My point was RAID0 uses 2 drives to create 1 drive... so you double the chance of failure as losing one, corrupts the data on BOTH!
