TechSpot

How would you do this?

By ingeborgdot
Feb 24, 2010
  1. On a new computer I am planning on building this summer I was thinking of raid 0 for the OS W7. Is this wise or not? The main thing about this is that I am not going SSD as they are way too expensive at this point. I want to do it with WD Caviar black but the smallest is 500GB. So that would give me 1TB o space. How would you partition this setup. I will have other hdd that I will use for video, pictures and music. Video I have will use almost a TB alone as much is Avi format from capture. It will keep getting bigger over time. Anyway back on to my question. Can I do a raid 0 on a 140GB partition for the OS. I know 140GB sounds big but Vista and 7 just keep adding things in and it takes up space a if you got it use it. Anyone care to iterate.
     
  2. mailpup

    mailpup TS Special Forces Posts: 6,979   +362

    What I don't like about Raid 0 is you are doubling your chances of losing your data, programs or whatever.
     
  3. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,693   +1,880

    Unfortunately, RAID 0 is mostly only a good idea on paper. To have any real data security you need to run RAID 5 (which I think is the correct number for RAID 0+1) This requires 4 (count 'em) HDDs in its purest form,

    SSD (s) in the neighborhood of 40GB are about $100.00 nowadays, A 40GB system drive is manageable, but you have to re-target all the "My Document" folders, to a storage drive, along with game scenery files and such. Photoshop "scratch disks" should likewise be targeted to a HDD other than the OS drive.

    With 64 bit OSes, and the additional RAM they can access, HDD dependency has dropped to an all time low. The page files aren't getting used like in the old days.

    SSD is super if you feel compelled to brag about your boot times, but for the time being I personally will suffer with a non RAID ,mechanical HDD setup, until they can assure me that the problem with SSD performance degradation over time has been fully solved, >> AND<< the price comes down.
     
  4. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    I think you can actually run raid 5 with 3 hdd but I may be wrong.
    I am not looking at getting any SSD yet. Performance does not out way the outlandish price you pay for a good sized hdd.
     
  5. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,435   +145

    If your not really concerned about losing data...go ahead theres nothing 'wrong' with it.
     
  6. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    I am semi concerned with it. I do a weekly backup with acronis but still I don't want to lose any data. In a raid 5 isn't that a semi safe setup? Would you raid 1? I know raid 1 is not as fast as raid 0 but it is still a little faster than no raid is what I have read.
     
  7. hughva

    hughva TS Rookie Posts: 58

    The experts tell me not to bother with RAID unless you get hardware RAID, and it's expensive.
    Anyone who's had RAID 0 can tell you about total, irrevocable data loss. Don't even think about it.
    Speed gains from RAID seem to be minimal, or even fictitious in many cases.
    See here for more:
    Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible Idea
    http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=29
     
  8. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

  9. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,693   +1,880

    The drive gets wonderful reviews, but like all the other SATA 1, 2, and 3, HDDs, it won't saturate the SATA 1 spec buss, let alone SATA 2 or 3. It's mostly advertising hype.

    The only mechanical drives that would exceed any SATA spec would be a couple of 15,000 RPM SCSI s in RAID 0, or pair of the very best SSDs would do it also.
     
  10. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,693   +1,880

    I have no idea why this would be true, since RAID 1 is writing the same data to 2 different HDDS. The data stream has to be equivalent to the speed of the slowest drive. It's a "backup" configuration. Yeah I know it's "mirroring".
     
  11. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    So, just a plain Caviar black would be just as good.
     
  12. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    Actually, it's not faster in the write but they say it is a little faster in the read then no raid.
     
  13. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,693   +1,880

    Well, the SATA 6Gbs drive may be this year's model. Newegg has been "sold out" of the WD "Caviar Black (640GB)", for a few weeks. The price is also way up on the "Caviar Blues". So, I think it's sort of up in the air as to what will be restocked, and how much it's going to cost!

    BTW, the 640 GB "Caviar Black" is sort of the darling of the reviewers.
     
  14. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,693   +1,880

  15. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 9,322   +619

    even Microsoft discourages using Raid[*] on the boot volume.
     
  16. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    No, raid will be used on the boot volume or even used. That is what I have decided.
     
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...