So I've got two 500GB HDs...

[Kasdar]

Ok, I am a computer technician. I got my degree in 1993 and my A+ Cert in 1996. I fully concur with what Fyron 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. If you don't care about redundancy simply partition your primary hard drive with a reasonable partition for storing WINDOWS, then use the remaining partition and the other drive for your data and programs. 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, however you mast likely will eventually run into a situation where you will lose everything because of a simple disk failure, if you decide on the RAID 0 approach.

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. As most motherboards have 2 IDE headers that each support 2 drives. Put the 160gb HD as a master on the same cable as your CD/DVD drive and set it to slave. Then run the 2 500gb HD's on the other Header and use RAID 1.

[AstralWanderer]

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.

[Raapys]

Also, you guys seem to be missing the fact that most people want the biggest possible amount of disk space these days. For most people I know, there's no way they'd sacrifice 500gb of space by going Raid1 just to possibly avoid the consequences of a disk failure.

This is how I think it should be done: Put two smaller hdds in a Raid0 array and then install windows and all your applications and games onto that array. This will let those programs take advatange of the great performance of Raid0. Then you simply use a regular hdd of some size for storage; put all your documents, movies, save-games, porn, whatever, in there.

Should the Raid0 array ever fail, it's simply a matter of replacing the broken disk and reinstalling windows and your games and applications. All the important stuff will still be stored on your storage disk.

[AstralWanderer]

Raapys said:
All the important stuff will still be stored on your storage disk.

The reservation I'd have about this method is that it isn't easy identifying the "important stuff". Aside from whatever you have in the Documents folder, you also need to consider saved games (which in most cases will be in the game program folder but could also exist in the Documents folder or elsewhere), program configurations (having to set up a dozen or more programs from scratch is undesireable - and these can be held in files or Registry entries) and program data (email databases, logfiles, etc).

Full image backups avoid this problem since everything gets copied, so when restored your system is just as it was when the backup was started.

[Raapys]

True, but then you have to actually make regular backups, which will shortly become much more time consuming than simply reinstalling windows and your applications. It'd also consume a fair amount of disk space. I'd say the 2 hours or so that it takes to reinstall and configure your programs is acceptable for an event( disk failure ) that is unlikely to occur unless you don't plan to upgrade for ages or if you have a tendency to kick your computer case when losing in games.

Let's also not forget that hdd's are getting better and better in terms of reliability. Isn't the life expectancy of newer hdds like 5+ years now?

[Fyron]

AstralWanderer said:
"This is BS - faster hard drives will always provide a performance improvement and for a home user, games will show the most obvious benefit."

Raapys said:
"This will let those programs take advatange of the great performance of Raid0."

Faster performance only matters when you are speeding up a bottleneck... When disk access is already so fast as to not be a bottleneck in a single user, non-server environment, a few percent improvement doesn't really matter.

Raapys said:
"Also, you guys seem to be missing the fact that most people want the biggest possible amount of disk space these days.

Actually, the fact is that Narf doesn't need 1 TB of space, and doesn't even really need 500 GB of space. He bought two drives explicitly to use one as a backup, not as extra storage space. What most people want (which neither you nor I are at all qualified to judge; argument by popularity and all that) is irrelevant to the suggestions made to Narf.

[Kasdar]

AstralWanderer said: 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).


Where in my post did I tell him to use RAID 1 on his configuration files? I suggested that he install windows on the 160 gig drive. There is no real need to store backups of windows and you can store a backup of the registry on a CD. The point was if he installs Windows on a small partition on the 160gb drive he can install his programs to the other. Then use the 2 500gb in a RAID 1 configuration to protect his data. He can always reinstall windows and copy back the registry if he gets a corrupted install.


AstralWanderer said: 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.

Now you just don't get the point. what you said there is true, although I don't agree with the comment that DansData suggests to replace your hard drive every year, But that isn't the point the point is in your calculation you forgot to mention that there is only about a .0001% Chance that both drives in a RAID1 will fain at the same time. and he would experience the same problem if his backup failed. however with the RAID1 his backup will be transparent and instantanious as not to make him waste his time performing a backup. The RAID 1 does that for him. I myself don't use RAID 1 as I have the capability to use better RAID setups, but it is the perfect option for performing the tasks that Narf is intending to do.

AstralWanderer said: This is BS - faster hard drives will always provide a performance improvement and for a home user, games will show the most obvious benefit.

The fact is a normal person will never notice any improvement when using RAID 0 on an PATA drive, and very little if any on a SATA drive,with a motherboard RAID solution

AstralWanderer said: 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.

For what he needs RAID 1 makes perfect sense that is the time when RAID 1 would be used. And no-one said that Higher level RAID wouldn't be better but he dosen't have that option.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Thanks for all the responces. I've installed windows XP (Home) on one of the 500GB HDs and have made a data partition. I will be using the other as a simple backup, as that seems best.

I do, however, have some questions:

A) How do I tell windows to locate the 'Documents and Settings' and 'Program Files' folders to the data partition? I'm told TweakUI can do so, but I cannot find that option.

Thanks.

[Fyron]

TweakUI is a XP Power Toy, available for download from MS' web site.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

...I have TweakUI. It is not TweakUI I cannot find, it is the option in TweaUI to change those.