Kasdar said:
RAID 0 is very bad and those of you who think your hard drives won't fail are the ones who are gonna have the most problems.
And exactly
where has anyone in this thread assumed that hard disk failure wasn't an issue? The point I have been trying to make (and which you seem to have profoundly missed) is that configuration corruption (due to causes like a failed driver install or malware compromise) is a far more common problem than drive failure. RAID mirroring does
nothing to cover this area, only a regular backup will (with a full image backup being the easiest to make and restore from).
The likelihood of failure (as doubtless any A+ tech should know...) for an average drive will be somewhere between 2-4% per year. Over a 5-year period, a 4% ARR (Annual Replacement Rate) drive has a 19.5% chance of failing, with a RAID 0 2-drive array doubling this (39%). For a 3-year period the figures are 11.5%/23% respectively. So yes, users of RAID0 arrays definitely should keep regular backups (a point made repeatedly in this thread) but whether you are using RAID or not, you
still need to keep backups - the backup frequency being dictated by the maximum amount of data you are prepared to lose.
On top of that, the prudent user should consider regularly replacing their hard drives - DansData sugguests
3 years as a good point.
Kasdar said:
There is no reason to do a RAID 0 configuration as with the drives you are using and the array's that come with windows and/or motherboards you WILL NOT see any improvement in performance
This is BS - faster hard drives will always provide a performance improvement and for a home user, games will show the most obvious benefit.
Kasdar said:
The option I might suggest to you would be to install WINDOWS on your 160gb HD and, use the other 2 drives in a raid 1 array to store your data. that way you have the best of both worlds.
With that setup, an extra hard disk would have to be purchased to store image backups (using multiple CDs or DVDs is possible but impractical for current PC setups which can easily exceed 50GB in size). Using the 160GB for backup instead as suggested above provides a short-to-medium term solution.
RAID 1 only makes real sense for systems that have to be up 24/7 where instant recovery from hard disk failure is needed and even then, higher RAID levels with hot-swap capability would serve better.