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

[Fyron]

A mirrored array (RAID 1) provides read performance improvements. The write performance loss is irrelevant outside of a heavy-performance server environment, given the high speeds of disk I/O with modern drives anyways.

NEVER use a basic striped array without parity (RAID 0)! You will lose all of your data when one drive dies. Lack of fault tolerance is worse than useless in a RAID array.

(the striped with parity RAID configurations aren't relevant to this discussion, as Narf is limited to 2 drives)

[AstralWanderer]

Fyron said:
A mirrored array (RAID 1) provides read performance improvements. The write performance loss is irrelevant outside of a heavy-performance server environment, given the high speeds of disk I/O with modern drives anyways.

Assuming that you are using matching disks, the improvements in read and losses in write performance should be marginal, and likely not noticeable outside of benchmarks.

Fyron said:
NEVER use a basic striped array without parity (RAID 0)! You will lose all of your data when one drive dies. Lack of fault tolerance is worse than useless in a RAID array.

Well, never say "never". Disk drive failure is going to be a far rarer occurence for a home user than a software install gone wrong or malware messing up a Windows setup (assuming Narf doesn't have a pair of DeathStars). A 2-drive stripe does double that chance but with a regular backup, the advantages of performance should outweigh the (still very small) risk of data loss.

[Fyron]

Relying on the user making manual backups is not a sound strategy. There will be lapses, and Murphy's Law guarantees that any problems will occur during those lapses.

With sound partitioning strategies, malware infections are trivial to clear out. Give Windows its own 10 GB partition, install apps and save data on another partition. Even with a RAID, formatting the Windows partition and reinstalling to fix deep malware infection isn't that big of a deal.

RAID 0 is never an option. Don't even consider it.

[AstralWanderer]

Fyron said:
Relying on the user making manual backups is not a sound strategy. There will be lapses, and Murphy's Law guarantees that any problems will occur during those lapses.

As I noted above, you can automate backups, and they are very much necessary whether mirroring or not.

Fyron said:
With sound partitioning strategies, malware infections are trivial to clear out....Even with a RAID, formatting the Windows partition and reinstalling to fix deep malware infection isn't that big of a deal.

I disagree. Partitioning can make restoring from a backup easier (providing the option of restoring the Windows partition only to recover from registry corruption without affecting the applications installed) but it most certainly does not make a Windows reinstall easy! Most applications store data in the Windows Registry which will be lost in such an event, meaning that many will need to be reinstalled and reconfigured. The time taken for this can greatly outweigh that of installing and configuring Windows itself (and could take days in the case of a well-developed setup with dozens of applications).

Fyron said:
RAID 0 is never an option. Don't even consider it.

Depends on the situation. I use it and for me the performance benefits outweigh the increased likelihood of disk failure (which a regular image backup takes care of). Indeed, the only situations where mirroring could pose an advantage are those where the data is critical enough to merit using higher RAID levels anyway.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Well, instead I stayed up all night reading fanfiction. But, on the bright side, this is all very informative.

[StarShadow]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Well, instead I stayed up all night reading fanfiction. But, on the bright side, this is all very informative.

Did you at least get the cookies? Personally I suggest having cookies before, during and after the install..

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Slept too long to get cookies.

[Fyron]

An image backup of a whole RAID 0 array is going to be crazily large (and you need to backup everything for the inevitable hdd failure). Better to not even bother with RAID 0 and just go with the original plan of two separate disks and manual backups. Its not worth the risks. And as you said, the performance gains are not that relevant for a desktop system. Server, yes. Media center PC, probably not. Gaming/workstation PC? Not really. The CPU is generally a bigger bottleneck in file I/O than the disks themselves in a single user workstation, where the disk isn't being constantly bombarded by requests from dozens to 100s of concurrent users.

A well-developed Windows install doesn't rely on dozens of registry-bound applications. There are always alternatives that store their settings in local files, with only a minimal amount placed in the registry when you run them. Hell, even our reason for being here has never needed to be reinstalled. My SE4 install dates from the original installation back in 2001, which has spanned two separate computers, a failed primary hdd, and half a dozen other MS OS re-installations (some of which involved oscillating between win2k and xp, so I'm not that crazy ). Even SE5 just asks for a CD key on first run.

As time goes on, I find myself having to reinstall fewer and fewer applications with OS reformats. Other than poorly designed MS and Adobe software (and some games), the stuff I do need to reinstall still tends to store the real app data in local files (or at worst in easy to copy/paste Local Settings folders), so reinitializing them is a cinch. It also helps to point a few key folders, like "My Documents," to a different partition with TweakUI (I'd recommend against Program Files, cause a ton of garbage builds up in there; instead install apps you want to keep in D:\Programs). When I reformat, most of my apps can be run directly from the D: partition without any extra effort. A few others need a backed up settings/profile folder copied into the Local Settings folder, and are then good to go. The 3 or 4 apps that actually need installation can just be installed when needed in the future. No big deal.

Would I be better off with disk images for restoration? Not really, since that doesn't remove the cruft that builds up over time, the primary reason for reinstalling the OS. Frequent disk image backups would only let me undo the changes for the past week or two. Malware infections that can't be fixed from safe mode are few and far between, especially with XP SP2 and Vista (anecdotally, I've suffered twice as many hdd failures as irreparable malware infections). A base disk image of the Windows partition post installation and basic setup would help somewhat, but it would fail to be relevant if I ever change hardware components or decide to switch to some different apps. Such necessitates creating a new base image, which over time results in more time and effort than just reinstalling the OS and restoring the Local Settings folders.

Interestingly, a lot of this is just coincidental to the apps I prefer using for various tasks. It seems that the better software design these apps have overall winds its way all the way to the bottom level choices of where to store critical data. The registry was a terrible invention that just needs to fade into dust already...

[Raapys]

I think you must have just been extremely unlucky with your hdds, Fyron. I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone I know having their hdd fail, nor have any of my own hdd's ever failed. You will also find that companies like Dell/Alienware are now selling their high-end computers with Raid0 by default. I wouldn't bother with 'wasting' a hdd on going Raid1 for anything but 'can't risk losing this'- type of data, and I wouldn't store that on my home-entertainment computer at any rate.

The average user might not notice a drastic difference with Raid0's performance increase( unless it's a 2x 10,000 RPM setup, i.e. 3x the speed of a normal hdd ), but it will definitely speed up things like loading of windows, faster loading of applications and demanding games, etc. You'll also get a smoother windows experience in general.

[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.