raptors in raid0 worth it?

[junglebass]

well is it worth the extra cost of a drive and setup time and more risks of failure to run raid0 for increased speed?????

i want to get a raptor but is a pair worth it??

[hp]

My opinion, no, defintely not worth it.

It's cost prohibitive, (2x of cost for Raptor drive, which is already selling at a premium)

Increase the risk of your data, if one disk goes, you lose data on both drives.

If you really need speed and money isn't a factor, get SCSI instead.

Honestly, what make speed on a hard all that important to you, or is this just a passing fancy.

If you want RAID, try RAID 5 instead of 0, you get speed improvement insome cases, increased data security (if 1 drive goes, you can still recover the data) but the down side is that you need minimum of 3 hard disks and decreased capacity.

hp

[nsd]

If your data doesn't matter you could definitely use that setup. Of course you could do a regular back-up to an hdd not in the RAID. But then again you'd have to be rather unlucky for one of the drives to fail, don't you think.

[ShadowVlican]

not worth it

[tdotcbc84]

i have a raid-0 and im not scared of losing data...


you back up ur data somewhere else anywayz... DONT YOU ?

in my case.. i back up IMPORTANT files on my iPod :)

[belgiangenius]

well is it worth the extra cost of a drive and setup time and more risks of failure to run raid0 for increased speed?????

i want to get a raptor but is a pair worth it??

Don't bother. A raptor is already smoking fast - blows away anything else.

[ShadowVlican]

Don't bother. A raptor is already smoking fast - blows away anything else.
except the gigabyte i-ram..... nothing comes close. period.

but the $/GB is insanely high :lol:

[Silver Bullet]

Speed cost money .. how fast u wanna go .. is what i would say. Two 74GB raptors would amazing fast in comparison to either a single raptor or even a regular HD (see review: here (http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/index03.asp)). SCSI is worthless, it's way to expensive and is not really ment for desktop use. If your worried about you're data, buy two other HDs and keep them in RAID 1 (mirror). I would set your computer up this way...

C: 40GB - Windows & Apps (on RAID 0)
D: 15GB - My Docs/Email Storage (yes u can change where it's placed) (on RAID 1)
E: 80GB- Games & Apps (on RAID 0)
F: 120GB+ - MISC (tv, music, etc) (on rest of RAID 1)

This keeps your important data save, but allows lots of speed for apps and games. I would say getting a couple of used 200GB off of BST thread and i did see two Raptor 74GBs for $280 on the BST thread.

If you're worried about your data but still want speed, a single raptor would still work great (that's what i have now) and then have a big RAID 1 array backing it up.

[Cafe_333]

:arrowu: SilverBullet's post says it all, especially the review link with benchmarks. The speed that you get with raid-0 speaks for itself. Faster bootup times, faster application loading, files open faster, everything writes faster, and if you ask me, the general user experience that you get is well worth it. I have been running raid-0 for my OS for several years now and I'll *never* go back. ;)

EDIT: my raid-0 drives beat a single SCSI in the File System Benchmark from Sandra too. :D
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7919/sisofthdd9rn.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sisofthdd9rn.jpg)

[w4x]

for read/write performance->yes worth it if you don't really care about the data on your system or have some other means to back it up.

if data is important and you don't want to sacrifice performance, try RAID 10. it has very good performance and the best data security. you can have all but 1 hard drive fail and still recover. only problem is that the overhead costs are quite significant and disk space is still capped at 1/2 the smallest number of drives in RAID 1 times the number of RAID 1 arrays you have in RAID 0