250g sata or 2x120 RAID???

[rs600cubed]

Would it be better to get a 250g SATA h/d or put 2 120's in a RAID. I really dont know much about RAID at all so Im not sure if theres a difference. All info would be appreciated.

[lansens]

It would really depend on what you plan to use the drive for. If you are looking for data redundancy I would go with the 2 drives in raid1. Raid1 will leave you with only 120GB of storage. If you want the size, just go with the 250 GB drive.

[wquiles]

Compared to a single drive, two drives in RAID1 would give you data protection, but no data performance.

Since hard drive access is usually one of the slowest things in any computer system, I would personaly go with a very fast SATA drive (like the Raptors) or use two "normal" drives in RAID0. Now, for RAID0 you got no protection if the array fails, so you would need to back up your data for safekeeping.

[OSUmaxx]

If this is a backup solution, get one drive for sure. If you're looking for a RAID solution with roughly the same available space, you'd need to use RAID 0. While there is a performance increase with this, you need to know that if one of the two drives fail, you lose everything.

[doodah10]

RAID 0! I have it and an IDE drive to back up the RAID array. The single drive has the same programs and data loaded but the speed difference when using the IDE is very noticable! IMHO, RAID 1 is useless. If one drive dies, you have an identical drive, so your going to bet that a drive is going to die? If you have data corruption, get a virus, bad drivers, both drives have the problem!

[Evnas]

Originally posted by OSUmaxx
While there is a performance increase with this, you need to know that if one of the two drives fail, you lose everything.

I notice people always bring that up and its got me thinking...

What the difference if he buys one drive? If it fails, he obviously still loses everything, and the chances of a single drive failing are just as (un)likely as one of the drives in the array failing...so how is this a reason not to do RAID 0?

Now, if compared to two 120GB not in a RAID 0, compared to in a RAID 0, then that can be understandable as when not in a raid, one of the two would still survive. But when comparing to one large, versus two smaller (which is the case here), I personally dont see it as a problem (though there may be something I'm missing).

[adelphia83]

I don't quite understand that argument either.

The chances of a drive failing are slim to none. Sure if you threw two deathstar 75GXP's on a raid0 array, you may be asking for trouble. But truth be told, drive failures are NOT all that common, and it usually is caused by the user when one does fail (dropping it off a desk or something).

In the last umpteen years of owning drives, I've had one Seagate 10mb drive fail, and one WD 210mb drive fail in a total of about twenty or more. Of course the aforementioned drives were 10+ years old when they failed.

If one of your drives fails in a Raid0 array, don't blame it on RAID being "insecure" (for lack of a better term), you just have really bad luck. The benchmarks speak for themselves, a RAID0 array is going to be faster in a big way in comparison to a single drive.

If you're really paranoid about data security, put your most important files on a separate drive, optical media, or some other format where it won't get lost. If my raid array was waxed today, I wouldn't lose a damn thing, as all my important stuff is already backed up. I reinstall Windows every couple months so go figure..

Two Hitachi 80gb SATA drives offer about the best bang for the buck right now, but I can only imagine two 120gb drives not being too much more.

[OSUmaxx]

^^^ First of all, I run a RAID 0 setup on two of my boxes, so I'm not against it, just pointing out the facts. Statistically speaking, when you jump from relying on 1 HDD to 2 HDDs, your risk or array failure increases. HDD failures do happen... I recently had a NEW maxtor die and an older WD die on me.

Now back to what's relevant to this thread. He said that he needs about 250 GB of space. For the average person, you'd use a 250 GB space as backup. He probably doesn't have another 250 GB drive to back this up to in fear of drive failure. I was suggesting a solution that would give him the most reliability. I really don't think RAID 0 is the way to go here. If this is his main OS drive, maybe he should reconsider and run a smaller RAID 0 array for that and have a larger IDE for backup.

[adelphia83]

Who said you were against it? I was not directing my post toward anyone specific, so please refrain from directing your post toward mine (i.e flaming).

Of course the risk increases with two drives, and yes hard drives failures DO happen, I also agreed and posted two specific examples.

The use of probably in your response, makes your rebuttal purely hypothetical. I think it's common sense that if you're paranoid about securing data, you'd run a backup "storage" drive regardless, or frequently backup important data.

I posted my suggestion, I'll leave it at this: Raid0 for speed, or single drive and/or backup for either if you're overly concerned about losing data.