hey guys ok last year i had a raptor X 10k rpm the one with the window and it died and have only just sent it back and they replaced it with a velociraptor 300GB 10k rpm so its alot better i guess though i miss watchign the pin flick around across the spinnig disks. So when it did brake i got two 500gb spamsung spinpoints to replace it and have one as a backup and the other as OS installed, if i was to raid array two of those what one should i choose i use my Pc 90% of the time for gamming and the other web and music/dvds so nothing really important. That dude
If, as you mention, you want one drive for backup, you'll want RAID 1--the contents of one drive are mirrored on the other.
Pretty much to agree, there are no real benefits to be had by linking them seek-time-wise, so you might as well just go for redundency and mirror them in a RAID 1.
RAID1 is not back up!! It mirrors one disk to another, so in the event of failure of one drive, the other still holds your data. However, if you accidentally erase your data, then you have accidentally erased it off the mirror also. This is not back up. If you get infected by malware, or worse... so is your mirror. As you have 2x 500GB drives, and you are thinking of running RAID1 which gives you a 500GB disk with redundancy, and no other real benefit, why not just NOT bother with RAID at all, and have 2x 500GB disks, but use one as a dedicated back up drive and use a decent back up program to create an image of the other drive on it? This IS back up. You still have redundancy if you schedule to back up every day, and unlike RAID1, accidentally deleting something will not be a problem. (assuming you realised you deleted it).... or even use a 2 way sync program (then it doesn't matter if you didn't realise). RAID1 is not back up. Most people who run RAID1 are doing so for redundancy, and will still back up the contents of the RAID1 array.
Basically what i ment was use the two 500Gb as my main OS installed drive in a raid array of some sort and just use the 300Gb as backup so is raid 1 the fast one that writes 50% of the data onto drive one and the other 50% onto drive two? would that one be best? I just want my load times and game install times to be as fast as possible im not to fust about the safety of the data, the only piece of data that is of anyworth is my CV and thats on USB and email aswell anyway. Sorry for being a bit vague on my op, thanks for your help guys
If it's improved speeds from the two drives you want, then you're looking for RAID 0. Do bear in mind that if either drive fails, your data is gone, so this doubles the chances of failure. Pookeyhead: Mirroring the contents of one drive to another in order to safeguard against potential failure of either is, by definition, the creation of a backup. If one drive fails, the data is not lost. This is of course different from copying the contents of a drive in whole or in part to another, as you say.
I would so strongly recommend against RAID0 in a desktop PC, that its not even funny. My betrothed's brother has just had his laptop - which is 2x 300gb 7200 drives in RAID0 - die, and has no backups, so the data is likely gone. What would like be best for you is to use your 300GB raptor as your primary drive - as it'll be faster than the two 500gb drives even in RAID0 - and use as has been recommended above some kind of scheduled/incremental backup software. Norton Ghost is cheap and will do it very admirably.
Matarsak: RAID protects against disk failure - nothing else. Should your controller go screwy, a RAID 1 array will have two copies of a load of rubbish. Should you accidentally delete something, you won't have anything. Should a virus corrupt a file, you will now have two copies of the corrupted file. A back up will help protect against these - you would have to accidentally break two separate files on two separate disks to lose something.
I'm sorry, but it's not. Mirroring is... yes.. meaning copying from one drive to another, but RAID1 does not mirror as a separate process. When you write to the drive, it is automatically written to the other, so consequently, when you delete from a drive, it will automatically be deleted from the other also. RAID1 is NOT back up. If it doesn't protect you from deletion or malicious software, then how can it be a back up? I make back ups to my RAID5 server using Acronis. If I delete a needed file from my boot drive, I can still restore from my back up. THAT'S back up. If I only had a RAID1 array and treated it as back up, then if I accidentally delete a needed file from my boot partition, it will also be deleted from the RAID mirror. I would have no recourse available to me in order to restore. Therefore it's failed me as a back up strategy. Surely you must see this? By default, RAID1 is NOT back up. RAID gives redundancy. Back ups give Back up. You should always make a back up, no matter if you have RAID1, 5 or any other redundant method. RAID0 is the "fast" one. Data is striped across both disks. RAID1 doesn't give a speed advantage, but offers redundancy. If you want RAID0, then you REALLY need to back up, as you will double your chances of data loss through hardware failure.
bit did a writeup awhile back about raid, and it essentially says what alot of people felt, the pros dont outweigh the cons enough to warrant using it on a home pc...use the new raptor for os and games, use a 500 gb as storage, and the other as backup.
i run 2x250gb HDs in RAID 0, but i wish i didnt. i get about the same performance as a samsung f1 -.- just waiting for an SSD then i can ditch RAID for good
