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

[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.