View Full Version : Raid or Normal Setup Poll

01-11-09, 10:37 AM
I am wanting to find out how many here actually use Raid in their rigs and how many do not.

I am a fan of Raid as it is definite speed advantage over normal drive configurations.

So i have decided to have a vote on it to see some sort of ratio of who does and who does not.

Come on now get voting.

01-12-09, 06:46 AM
No raid here until I buy a new WD 500G disk to do an amazing 1Tb Raid0

01-12-09, 07:02 AM
I have used Raid in the past and was cool, but having to back everything up to DVDs before a reformat sucked. I'd only suggest Raid if you have at least 3 HDDs, not just 2. I may do it, again, someday, but for now, it's just 2 separate HDDs for me.

01-12-09, 07:07 AM
I used RAID0 for 6 years. It offers very little performance boost for real world workstation usage. I don't use it anymore as I found separating my drives gave a greater boost in performance and reliability.

C:- OS, pagefile
D:- storage, downloads
E:- game and large app (AutoCAD) installs

01-12-09, 07:22 AM
Got my two 500gb seagates in soft raid1.
Dunno know though if it was wise to do this. It's stable but i dont know if it helps performance or not.

01-12-09, 07:28 AM
Its not work it, don't bother.

01-12-09, 07:50 AM
Its not work it, don't bother.

Funny coming from a "guy" not even running RAID. :rolleyes:

I for one found the speed increase noticeable, so I'd say it's worth it as long as you have a third backup drive! :)

Here's MaximumPC's raid vs single drive benchmark scores:


01-12-09, 07:55 AM
I had Raid 0 and loved it, the only reason I changed to a WD640 is because the 36GB Raptors were so damn noisy it was driving me nuts. If I get another 640 I will Raid 0 them for sure.

01-12-09, 09:33 AM
Two WD 300 GB VelociRaptors in RAID 0 here...

01-12-09, 11:36 AM
Raid is a "must" for any storage type of pc I run, but it can't be substituted as a backup plan either.

01-12-09, 02:50 PM
2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB

Good performance AFAIC. It's fast enough for me and plenty of storage. I have a Maxtor 80GB (which is 6 years old already lol) and a good old 7 year old 80GB IBM Deskstar and 400GB Barracuda in a non-raid config. The drives not part of the RAID0 array feel slower (not very odd though)

My old server uses RAID0 and RAID5 which also works pretty well, too bad the drives are complete **** these days:

2x Seagate Cheetah 9.1GB 10000RPM

RAID5 (mostly important files):
5 x Seagate Cheetah 9.1GB 10000RPM

RAID5 (webserver contents and MSDN images:
6x Seagate Cheetah 9.1GB 10000RPM

RAID5 works pretty well, when a drive fails you just pull it out and replace it with a new one. Then you pray until it's finished rebuilding the array :P

As expected RAID is not a replacement for backups

01-12-09, 03:08 PM
RAID5 works pretty well, when a drive fails you just pull it out and replace it with a new one. Then you pray until it's finished rebuilding the array :P

Depending on your hardware RAID controller, you may want to assign one drive as a hot spare. It will rebuild the RAID 5 array as soon as a failure is detected.
My guess is that those Cheetahs might be close to their MTBF.

EDIT: I would think about getting rid of that RAID 0 array very soon if i were you.

01-12-09, 04:04 PM
RAID 0 on my desktop, RAID 5 on my file server.

01-13-09, 12:32 PM
My Thanks to all of you who have contributed to the thread. The results are not what I expected, which makes it all the more interesting,as i fully expected only one or two who do not use raid,(being a performance orientated site).

My last system used Raid 0, however in my planned new build I wasn't committed either way.

More than likely though I will start out with one drive and Eventually go for the second ,and again with Raid 0. Apart from the price of the drive I see it as a free speed upgrade.

My last system really felt a lot snappier, when loading pages ,so would have expected that read times were better overall.

01-13-09, 12:42 PM
i might be tempted to go RAID 0 when i get another 640GB WD.