F**k Hard drives.

[Sagath]

Originally Posted by enaberif

That is the key tho.. backing up stuff.

But say you have a 1gb RAID 0 .. that becomes more challenging to backup which is why RAID 0 isn't good for that and RAID 1 or 10 is because then if a drive dies unexpectedly you'll be ok.

And then the naysayers would shout "but...but...but...what if TWO die at the same time!"

Raid is fine. HDD's die no matter what. People who dont back up are just asking for trouble.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by Sagath

And then the naysayers would shout "but...but...but...what if TWO die at the same time!"

Raid is fine. HDD's die no matter what. People who dont back up are just asking for trouble.

Yes but RAID 0 is much worse than RAID 1 and people who think that setting up a RAID 0 array for storage or backup purposes and say its safe is off their rockers.

[gingerbee]

not having backups that's dangerous hd die no matter what you do having raid0 is for the performance why would you put data on there that's not backed up (silly don't ya think)
and lets take a vote. Everyone who run's raid of any kinda how many of them have lost data because of the raid screwing up and not because it was not backed up ( i.e raids that do backups them self's)

[rjbarker]

rip blurays. Not burn them. You just copy them to your HDD.

Right...shouild have read it more carefully.....Sony has us all by the short n curlies on this one!

[JimboToronto]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Yes but RAID 0 is much worse than RAID 1 and people who think that setting up a RAID 0 array for storage or backup purposes and say its safe is off their rockers.

>>>RAID 0 is much worse than RAID 1<<<

Not for performance.

>>>setting up a RAID 0 array for storage or backup purposes<<<

That would just be foolish. The whole reason for using RAID-0 is improved performance. I use it only for system drives and keep all data and backups on external HDDs. If you absolutely must create a very large array, use RAID-5.

The best data security is multiple backups, including offsite.

[Squeetard]

I just ordered 3-60gb Vertexes. Raid0 baby!

[JimboToronto]

Originally Posted by Squeetard

I just ordered 3-60gb Vertexes. Raid0 baby!

Congratulations on a wise investment and welcome to the world of speed.

If you're like most of us you'll never want to go back to slow system storage again. HDDS are OK for bulk data and backups but as system drives they just don't cut it.

Please post some benches. I'm curious how they compare with the marginally faster 120GB Vertex in RAID-0.

[Squeetard]

You don't have to tell me, I started this thread.

Dude on the ocz forums gets 630mbs sequential reads with the same setup.

[gingerbee]

very nice 630mb almost maxed. i am think of getting 1 more a-data for hopefully around the same numbers. cool

[JimboToronto]

Originally Posted by Squeetard

You don't have to tell me, I started this thread.

Dude on the ocz forums gets 630mbs sequential reads with the same setup.

>>>You don't have to tell me, I started this thread.<<<

Sorry if I get a little evangelical about SSDs. I realize in this case I'm preaching to the choir.

>>>Dude on the ocz forums gets 630mbs sequential reads with the same setup<<<

That's pretty much bottlenecked by the ICH. You won't get better sequential reads with 4 or more SSDs. The reason I use 4 Vertex in my array is for better small-file performance.

Storage interfaces and controllers are the new bottleneck. I waited until the Barefoot SSDs to came out last winter before upgrading my desktop system because I figured it would be the last controller not to be bottlenecked by SATA2 on sequential transfers.

Until newer interfaces are developed, PCI-e is the only way to get the bandwidth necessary for faster sequential transfers.