RAID?

[ya3]

Ok, so I've just read through this guide on RAID (http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=830&page=1) and I'd like some of your opinions on it.

Is it really worth it? I'm thinking to go for a hardware RAID-0 setup with a couple of big 7200rpm drives... either as an upgrade or whenever I build a new PC. Is the speed increase significant? Any real problems associated with it?

Basically just any comments from people with real-world experience would be appreciated :D

[andr.in]

I have RAID but I dunno if it's worth it cuz i can't remember how it was like without it :P

[ya3]

I have RAID but I dunno if it's worth it cuz i can't remember how it was like without it :P
oh, k:sure:

anyone else?

[Xeef]

Hmm a was experimenting whit it a couple of years ago

it think it's worth from 3+ drives by 2 drives the speed is not soooo much faster
(still faster so still worth) BUT if ONE drive chrash ALL data is gone (unles you "waste" space for Error corection) they more drives you use the higher the chance that one drive will fail

BTW a was saw a thread 3-4 weeks ago that FLASH can't by instaled on a raid drive because the protection is sucks

[simpleSoft]

Learn more about Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks here (http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/neuffer/scsi/what_is_raid.html).

Though as the articale that I have linked here will explain that RAID 0 isn't really RAID at all. Because the idea of RAID is redundancy; if a drive fails you have some sort of inherant backup built in. RAID 0 just 'stripes' the information across many disks.

If all you are doing is having a crap load of pictures, games, movies, and music. Then do with out RAID, it should be cheaper. And just have a C:\ and a E:\ drive. However, if you are going to have a database of some sort that will stretch over 100's of gigs of information then RAID probably will be your only choice in accomplishing that goal.

Personally, I have a server that once was just a few disks, that I turned into RAID. I have not seen any amazing increase in disk seek time; or write for that matter. It was just that my database out-grew its 80Gig home and rather then buy a bigger disk I employed RAID. Though I went with RAID 5 because it is a server with 5 users connected to the database during business hours (that's all my SBS 2003 CALs will allow, so that is all I am going to tell you about ;) ).

My .02

[ya3]

oh, ok. thanks for the advice, people. i also found this: http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_19233 ...so i guess it's definately not gonna happen :(

oh well...

[kirupa]

1ZF7E9700397250463Learn more about Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks here (http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/neuffer/scsi/what_is_raid.html).
In case anybody is wondering, that is a UPS tracking number. It isn't a serial number or anything :) http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processInputRequest?HTMLVersion=5.0&loc=en_US&Requester=UPSHome&tracknum=1ZF7E9700397250463&AgreeToTermsAndConditions=yes&track.x=24&track.y=16

[simpleSoft]

Yes Kirupa it is another Windows 2003 Server OS rushing towards me from TX. Very astute observation. I was traking my package; and typing a response! :ne:

So if any one is looking for a brand new windows 2003 server os; intercept that package! :)

[Xeef]

do you use SOFT or HARD Raid ?
i was try SOFT but not realyze any speed advance
Hmmm more a speed disadvantage !

[simpleSoft]

hard