T4sys

RAID 0 - is performance worth the risk?

GET RAID or NO RAID?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. GET RAID or NO RAID?

    • Yes, get RAID 0
      4
    • No, don't get RAID 0
      21


Recommended Posts

Help, I need to decide which hard drive to get between

RAID 0 120GB (60GB x 2) 7200 RPM ATA100 - Hitachi -or- Single Drive 60GB 7200 RPM ATA100 - Hitachi

I'm ordering a notebook from Alienware, however, there's an on-going debate in another forum about whether or not the suggested performance increase (if any) from RAID 0 is worth the risk?

I'll be doing a lot of graphics design and desktop publishing, and some game playing like Star Wars X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter.

Will I see any difference in performance when using Paint Shop Pro 8 and Microsoft Office Pro 2003 (using Excel, Word and Desktop Publisher, maybe Access and PowerPoint), plus QuickCAD?

What's your opinion... or experience using RAID 0?

I appreciate any input -

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help, I need to decide which hard drive to get between

RAID 0 120GB (60GB x 2) 7200 RPM ATA100 - Hitachi -or- Single Drive 60GB 7200 RPM ATA100 - Hitachi

I'm ordering a notebook from Alienware, however, there's an on-going debate in another forum about whether or not the suggested performance increase (if any) from RAID 0 is worth the risk?

I'll be doing a lot of graphics design and desktop publishing, and some game playing like Star Wars X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter.

Will I see any difference in performance when using Paint Shop Pro 8 and Microsoft Office Pro 2003 (using Excel, Word and Desktop Publisher, maybe Access and PowerPoint), plus QuickCAD?

What's your opinion... or experience using RAID 0?

I appreciate any input -

Thanks!

195356[/snapback]

for what you do, raid 0 is a complete waste. About the only people who truelly need raid 0 are people doing audio/visual work. The increased risk isnt worth it for about 99% of power users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree to medfly's words!

For above mentioned applications, you dont need the risk using RAID0. Get more RAM instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this notebook is going to be your main workstation, I'd try to get a RAID1 setup instead. Nothing sucks more than losing all your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might see a slight performance increase, along the lines of 5-10%, but that's probably it.

If that's worth it to you, go ahead. Just remember to backup - regardless of whether you get RAID0 or not!

L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might see a slight performance increase, along the lines of 5-10%, but that's probably it.

If that's worth it to you, go ahead. Just remember to backup - regardless of whether you get RAID0 or not!

L.

195374[/snapback]

There might also be a performance decrease too. I'd stay away from RAID 0 unless there is a need or you just want to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not voting on that because it's kind of as foolish question. It's up to you if you want RAID 0 or not, not me. Is it worth the risk? I hate that question. Whats the chances of one of the hard drives going out on you? About the same as a single drive going out on you. Also, what risk is there when you maintain proper backups of your data? You do keep backups right? I keep images of my drives that I feel are important, so they can be restored quickly with no extra software installs.

If you think RAID 0 is risky, I can't belive you don't think a single drive is risky. If you want to reduce loosing data, you run RAID 1, and, ofcourse, you BACKUP YOUR DATA. Whats the chances of both drives dying? Chance of the laptop being stolen? Dropped and damaged?

RAID 0 does not put your data at any more of a risk vs a single drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not voting on that because it's kind of as foolish question.  It's up to you if you want RAID 0 or not, not me.  Is it worth the risk?  I hate that question.  Whats the chances of one of the  hard drives going out on you?  About the same as a single drive going out on  you.  Also, what risk is there when you maintain proper backups of your data?  You do keep backups right?  I keep images of my drives that I feel are important, so they can be restored quickly with no extra software installs.

If you think RAID 0 is risky, I can't belive you don't think a single drive is risky.  If you want to reduce loosing data, you run RAID 1, and, ofcourse, you BACKUP YOUR DATA.  Whats the chances of both drives dying?  Chance of the laptop being stolen?  Dropped and damaged? 

RAID 0 does not put your data at any more of a risk vs a single drive.

195483[/snapback]

RAID0 is more risky because any of two drives can die and leave you with a total dataloss, where as without RAID0 you'd only lose half your data. Also, there's the added complexity to worry about - there are more things that can go wrong, such as the array shitting it self.

That said i'm running RAID0 soon too, but on my workstation there are no data that i need to keep, it's all on the server, so even if all my drives died at once, i wouldn't lose anything more than some savegames and a few hours work at most.

L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

we are all familiar with my stand on the issue. Here is what I suggest, but that all depends on your confidence level regarding loading an OS a few times.

Since you are laying out a wad of cash for this machine, you may as well get it with the 2 drives now. You can try RAID 0 and RAID 1 and choose for yourself. OR, you can still use the 2 drives independently, which most members here will tell you is going to be the optimal set-up.

Important factors in your decision would be just how important the data you keep on your hard drive is, and historically, are you a back-up type person ?

Just like individual drives, with RAID 0 you will run a risk of disk failure, but two fold or worse with RAID 0 versus a single drive, because if one of those two drives fails, you lose all your data. Yes, just as with a single drive, there are data recovery options, but much more expensive and complicated (if possible at all), with RAID 0.

I choose RAID 0 for my gaming machines because even if the performance is only 10-15% better (in certain situations), I want it. However, I also make sure any data that is important does not sit in one place too long. Regardless of if it's a single drive, or 4+ RAID 0 setup, you cannot trust a hard drive to protect your important data.

As has happened, pretty much every reply here but mine is going to steer you away, and they do make practical sense. So maybe it's a lack of practical sense that I run my drives in RAID 0, but since I tried it years ago, I have been hooked on it (although I have never fell victim to a corrupt array or a disk going out). I can always tell the difference between a machine with RAID 0 versus one drive, or 2 or more independently.

The bottom line is, you won't know until you try it. But, keep in mind the risk involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,

we are all familiar with my stand on the issue. Here is what I suggest, but that all depends on your confidence level regarding loading an OS a few times.

Since you are laying out a wad of cash for this machine, you may as well get it with the 2 drives now. You can try RAID 0 and RAID 1 and choose for yourself. OR, you can still use the 2 drives independently, which most members here will tell you is going to be the optimal set-up.

Important factors in your decision would be just how important the data you keep on your hard drive is, and historically, are you a back-up type person ?

Just like individual drives, with RAID 0 you will run a risk of disk failure, but two fold or worse with RAID 0 versus a single drive, because if one of those two drives fails, you lose all your data. Yes, just as with a single drive, there are data recovery options, but much more expensive and complicated (if possible at all), with RAID 0.

I choose RAID 0 for my gaming machines because even if the performance is only 10-15% better (in certain situations), I want it. However, I also make sure any data that is important does not sit in one place too long. Regardless of if it's a single drive, or 4+ RAID 0 setup, you cannot trust a hard drive to protect your important data.

As has happened, pretty much every reply here but mine is going to steer you away, and they do make practical sense. So maybe it's a lack of practical sense that I run my drives in RAID 0, but since I tried it years ago, I have been hooked on it (although I have never fell victim to a corrupt array or a disk going out). I can always tell the difference between a machine with RAID 0 versus one drive, or 2 or more independently.

The bottom line is, you won't know until you try it. But, keep in mind the risk involved.

195506[/snapback]

*** 10 to 15% DISK performance !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, people seem to be a bit confused with regards to probability theory.

Lets say (for the sake of argument, not as a matter of fact), that a gereral HD has a 3% failure probability in its first year of operation. With one HD in your PC, you thus have a 3% risk of HD failure during the first year.

Or more commonly expressed:

P(HD failure) = P(failure of disk 1) = 0.03 = 3%

Now, assume you want two identical HD's in a RAID-0 config. Your risk of failure is now:

P(HD failure) = P(failure of disk 1 or failure of disk 2 or both) = 1 - P(no failures) = 1 - 0.97 * 0.97 = 0.0591 = 5.91%

Thus the risk of failure is almost double that of one disk.

Now, with RAID-1, the calculation is thus:

P(HD failure) = P(failure of disk 1 and failure of disk 2) = 0.03 * 0.03 = 0.009 = 0.09%

Now, how's that for a reduction in risk?

Now, this is all statistics of course. And it assumes that all HD failures (drive 1 vs drive 2) are completely unrelated, which is not the case (imagine a PC case which turns out to be poorly ventilated, it will slowly cook both drives).

But regard it as a starting point for judging risks with a bit more solid foundation than mere handwaving.

Second of all, the "risks" are probably not that interesting anyway....its 100% certain, that without backups, given enough time, you will loose data (RAID-1, RAID-5, RAID-6 etc does not protect against user error, programming errors, viruses, breakins etc).

So, go with any solution which suits you, but also invest in a backup solution and use use it wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID 0 does not put your data at any more of a risk vs a single drive.

RAID0 is more risky because any of two drives can die and leave you with a total dataloss, where as without RAID0 you'd only lose half your data.

WTF? Ok lets see.. RAID0, no backups, = 100% loss from 1 drive dieing. Okay, makes sense (keep backups!). No RAID0 (ie single drive setup), single drive dies = 100% loss from 1 drive dieing. How do you come up with half your data from a dead drive? Thats statement makes no sense at all. Are you implying you had a backup? Then why didn't you backup your RAID0 setup as well? Or were you trying to say 2 drives, no RAID, each with seperate data (not an option the original poster asked about)? Then the loss wouldn't really be 50/50 I'm sure. I know a guy who stores as much of his personal data as he can on his second hard drive, should that drive ever die on him he'd loose alot more than 50% of his data (and I don't count the programs that can be reinstallled as data).

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