Couple quick questions about drives (sizing, usage, maybe RAID)

Hey guys, got a couple quick questions for you. First, the situation:
Currently have a 200GB Seagate Barracuda PATA in my system, and i'm out of space. (I am a MASSIVE anime/music junkie, so space fills very quickly). I'm also working on building a new system in the future, like end of summer or christmas time. So, on with the questioning!

First, I've read a LOT of sigs/posts with people having a smaller drive (usually a 74GB Raptor) for the OS/programs, and then a larger one for storage. Is there a real benefit to keeping them separate like this?

Second, would RAID be worth it? I'm thinking of a 250 or 300 for my storage drive (If I do the above setup), and losing that much data due to HDD failure would blow. I'm willing to spend the extra money, but only if it'll really be worth it, since I'm going to save up enough for a nice high end system anyways.

Third, basic RAID question. If doing RAID for the storage drives, they'd have to be the same size, correct? I'm assuming it would be RAID1, which as I gather pretty much makes a clone of one drive on the other.

Assuming the OS/Storage split is good, I'd end up getting the large storage drive (or two, if RAID-ing), putting all my media on it and then when the new computer has been built, switching it over. My space just didn't last as long as I thought, so I figure I'd go ahead and get the drive soon.

First, I've read a LOT of sigs/posts with people having a smaller drive (usually a 74GB Raptor) for the OS/programs, and then a larger one for storage. Is there a real benefit to keeping them separate like this?

Click to expand...

THis is mainly because the Raptor is such a small drive. The put OS and programs on the faster drive for best performance then all their music and stuff on a larger drive.

econd, would RAID be worth it? I'm thinking of a 250 or 300 for my storage drive (If I do the above setup), and losing that much data due to HDD failure would blow. I'm willing to spend the extra money, but only if it'll really be worth it, since I'm going to save up enough for a nice high end system anyways.

Click to expand...

There is no real world performance gain from using RAID-0 so I wouldn't bother.

Third, basic RAID question. If doing RAID for the storage drives, they'd have to be the same size, correct? I'm assuming it would be RAID1, which as I gather pretty much makes a clone of one drive on the other.

Click to expand...

No they don't. If using RAID-0 though it will only count the space of the smallest drive. For example if you have a 200GB and a 120GB in RAID-0 the 200GB would be a 120GB. 120*2=240.

I was thinking of RAID more as a backup measure, in case one crashed, instead of RAID-0 for the speed boost from striping

If your data is really important to you then go for it. It's up to you. I just backup my stuff on a DVD-RW.

I've had my OS/apps and my data seperated for nearly ten years now - having them split keeps the fragmentation level down significantly. At first it was just two partitions, then two seperate drives, then a mirrored (RAID 1) array for the data, and now RAID 5.

I'm very pleased with the RAID 5 array, but it was expensive. RAID 1 worked well for me as well (it saved my data twice in my life so far), but my storage requirements (and performance desires) outgrew RAID 1.

And don't forget that what seems like a lot of space today will seem like none at all tomorrow. If there is one thing I've leaned it's plan big.

I'm not too familiar with RAID past 0 and 1. Right now though, I'm thinking I may go ahead and get a 300 GB drive for media (I cant afford to do a truly massive one like a 400), and maybe RAID it with another in the new comp, for the security factor.

And I definately know what you mean about the space thing. I got this 200 GB for all of my stuff, and thought I'd never fill it. 8 months later, its full ^_~.

I figure 300 should last me a decent amount if I'm just using it for all my media, since my games and other programs take up a good 60-80 i'd say, when all accounted for.

RAID 5 is "Stripped Parity" - it uses three or more drives, gives full redundancy, and lets you use all but one drive for storage (ie: 4x 300GB drives would give you 900GB usable). Using RAID 0+1 (mirroring a striped set) You have to use 4x 400GB drives and you'd still only end up with 800GB.

But it all depends how much space you need.