1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

RAID0 or new HD?

Discussion in 'System Builder's Advice' started by Lampmaster, Oct 10, 2009.

  1. Lampmaster

    Lampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    156 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Location:
    Washington The State
    Once I get my i7 system together the weakest part in my computer will be my HD. I've been wanting more space anyways so I want another one. My current HD is WD caviar blue 500 gig.

    So, do you guys think I should buy another of my current HD and RAID0? Or buy a different HD like a 640 gig WD black or 1 tb WD black?
  2. LittleLizard

    LittleLizard New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,775 (1.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Location:
    Latin America, Uruguay
    raid 0 if u feel lucky, caviar black 640 if u dont
  3. Lampmaster

    Lampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    156 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Location:
    Washington The State
    Why if I feel lucky? I'm a noob when it comes to raid so yeah... Just wondering which would be best performance
  4. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    with raid 0 you won't lose anything , other than time and steel nerves configuring , well you need to setup the whole system fresh imo (meant afaik :)
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2009
  5. Lampmaster

    Lampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    156 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Location:
    Washington The State
    I was planning on doing that anyways, so that'd be alright
  6. Meow9000 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    283 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    Location:
    Wales, Uk
    RAID0! Do it...
  7. Lampmaster

    Lampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    156 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Location:
    Washington The State
    Alright, thanks guys. Looks like I'm going RAID0
  8. _Zod_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    172 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Raid 0 isn't a true raid and you should be aware that you are more likely to lose data on a raid 0 setup than on just a single drive alone.
  9. jmcslob

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,898 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    457
    Location:
    Internet Heaven
    I would suggest you do a partition for an OS ISO backup...(Recovery Partition)
    I have 2 wd 500ALLS hd's in Raid0 with 400gb from each drive for 799gb as my primary partition (raid array1) and 100gb from each drive for a second partition at 199gb(raid array2)
    I used Acronis true Image WD edition to do my ISO OS backup(free at wd's website-so long as you have a wd hd connected)
    It's really nice to have, in case you screw up your primary partition, I also suggest you make the second partition large enough to keep important stuff like PICS or important files(saved games)
  10. newfellow New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    314 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17
    RAID-1 costs too damn much to not trust Raid-0. Data loss is very rare in my opinion I'm using ICH9R and it haven't failed me yet although can't say same on NVIDIA systems. ICH systems can even detect port chances which is nice.

    Using 2 disks, 2 RAID-0s on them first one 16K second 128K, first 64GB as root, space split in file system in larger array as 'C:\Application Storage' 64GB, rest of space as storage/downloads/pictures etc etc. Fast as hell and only thing ever failed has been Seagate HDs and that's twice on me but crash never has been so catastrophic yet that I couldn't of recover data.

    As for above jmcslob comment. Acronis rules and saving all absolutely needed to 3rd drives or USB as for safety NTFS Filesystem folder junctions are nice on this cause drive to drive.
  11. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    I wouldn't say that's it's less secure for data , than single drive, well if you somehow lose one the other is useless but that's just a risk you're going to take , for a setup that maximizes space and speed.
  12. Kursah

    Kursah

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    7,687 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Location:
    Missoula, MT, USA
    Sure, but it doesn't do much for gaming in my experience. I tried a few different drives, even my 6400AAKS, and really load times were less impressive than single drive results. If you do a lot of large file copies though, raid 0 will treat you nice, but really beyond benches I didn't feel or notice much of a difference between one 6400AAKS drive and two in raid 0. But it still doesn't hurt to give it a shot and see if it's something you like or not.
  13. Lampmaster

    Lampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    156 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Location:
    Washington The State
    I'm not to worried about data loss, these drives seem pretty reliable. And I plan on doing what jmcslob said about backing up. I'm not really expecting to be amazed by performance considering even a SSD only shaves off a few seconds.
  14. BraveSoul

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    987 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    go for it,, just get smaller less expansive drives with good reviews.. with raid0 motherboard drivers disk came very handy with each windows installation because everytime u try to install windows u need to load raid drivers to see ur raid0 partiotions

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page