least expensive way to expand my system

I am currently running the system in my signature, but have run into the physical limit of cramming hardware into my case. With a second graphics card to run 2 additional displays I will use my last expansion slot. I have already filled all of the 3.5" bays and 5.25" bays.

I primarily use the system for photo editing with file sizes often between 250-500MB open in several Adobe applications. As a college student, I also use the system as an HTPC, and for my school work, internet, etc. It is very rare that have fewer than 10-20 applications running. I also keep my photos, documents, artwork, and music collection backed up on this machine.

However I am hitting serious bottlenecks in my storage system which is why I have not even bothered to overclock my cpu. I am out of storage space and want to add some SSDs to speed things up.

Ideally, I would like to start building myself a server rack with separate machines for backup, HTPC, and photo editing, but as a college student that is just not feasible financially at the moment.

I would like to add 2 SSDs in RAID 0, 2 2TB HDDs. Then I would like to convert my 2 1TB drives into a RAID0 array and use the 4 2TB drives in a software raid solution for backup and music and movie storage. BTW, I only have 1 SATA port left.

How would you recommend doing this with spending the least amount of money?

Thanks

Backing up to a RAID 0 is just a bad idea to begin with. There is no redundancy.

Depending on how much space you need and how much you need the data to survive will change the options. In addition to that, how much you want to get into RAID. I'm also assuming this is for Windows, since you mention Adobe products.

If I needed mass storage for cheap, I'd pick up a Perc 5/i for less than $100, used of course. I'd then attach 1tb/2tb drives (depending on cost and storage needs) and run a RAID 5 array with a hot spare. I would then grab two large drives (2tb), put them in RAID 1 either through the card or through the operating system and keep mission critical data on them (backups). If I wanted to take it even further, I could get an external drive and keep it disconnected from the system, possibly in a fire-resistant safe.

Using a hardware RAID card makes the array portable. If your system fails, you can simply move the card and drives to another computer and all your information will be available without an issue. Not to mention, it is much higher performance.

Yes I am running Win7.

The 2 raid0 arrays would just be for active files and libraries with everything backed up to the 4 2TB drive array with redundancy. I have all my critical data also backed up on 2 DVDs which I remake every year. RAID0 seems to be the easiest way to get higher performance large volumes.

My photo/artwork library is about 800GB and is currently growing at a rate of about 20-50GB/wk. I use Lightroom to manage it, but access times slow down dramatically if I move around too much.

I will probably just make get rid of the 500GB drive I am currently using for Windows and applications and replace it with the SSDs (or maybe I will just start with 1 and see how that goes.) I will still be 2 SATA ports and 3 bays short though.

From what I have read the software RAID solutions are not as picky when it comes to loosing data as a RAID 5. I was looking at Unraid and it seemed like it would be easier for me to manage and safer than a RAID 5. Since it is just for backup and music/movie playback, the performance really does not matter. Either way, I need to find some way of getting more SATA ports.

RAID 1 will give a read performance boost on most RAID controllers.

UnRAID, from what I hear, is good. I just don't like the fact that I'd have to pay for it and it is limited to x number of drives. In addition to that, you can't run your own programs/services on that computer; you basically sacrifice it for file storage. Running a software RAID based file server would be a far cheaper option, and in my opinion, easier to setup with substantially less restrictions. But, it all comes down to what you want. I can only give suggestions.

My goals:

Performance
-faster OS/application launch and use (>=150GB)
-faster access/write for active file computations (files between 20MB and 50GB, most typically 100-500MB)
-faster active file library, specifically for use in Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premiere. (>1TB)
-more static storage capacity(movies, music, family photos) (>4TB)
-critical data to survive 2 drive failures (~500GB)
-all other data to survive 1 drive failure

I am assuming that my bottleneck is my hard drives since I can rarely get my processor above 50% and RAM is usually between 6-10GB used.

Hardware
-minimize new hardware purchases, both quantity and cost...poor college student with lots of other expenses
-high reliability (half of the point of this is so I do not have to panic when a drive starts making funny noises)
-smaller the better (I live in a room that is about 150ft^2 with 2 bikes, 3 pairs of skis, ski tuning bench, easel, photography stuff, bed, dressers...)
-quiet, I know silent is not possible but I love music and do not want to have to drown out fans.

Long term I think I am going to need a networked storage server for all of the static storage and backup, but in the mean time I need something to hold me off until I go back to working full time this summer. At the same time, I do not want to buy temporary hardware that will need completely replaced in 6 months.