 |  |  |  |  |
how unsafe is RAID0
| |||||||||
|
how unsafe is RAID0
| | |||||||
 |
 |
| | Thread Tools |
15th July 2006, 09:34
| #1 |
| Madshrimp  Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
 |  your RAID 0 array can fail either due to disk error or controller error; if you make a 4 HDD raid 0 array you have 5 points of failure, and I wouldn't put any valuable data anywhere near that data array. ask richbastard how he liked to loose 80gb of data with RAID0 after about ~2 monhts usage  RAID0 should only be used for scratch disk, not storing any permenant data
__________________  |
|
|
15th July 2006, 09:51
| #2 | |
| [M] Reviewer/HWBot ***** Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,344
 | Quote:
Currently running on 2*250gb raid 0, but I keep all valuable data on another drive. I think raid 0 is still a good option to get very good performance for a low price, but the drawbacks you can't overclock (controller failure = data loss) nor put really valuable data on it. I would really, really not mix overclocking with raid 0 setups, that's just plain stupid.
__________________ HTPC (mac osx): Mac Mini | Core Duo 1.6Ghz | 2GB DDR2 | 26\" TFT Development (mac osx): Macbook | Core 2 2.0Ghz | 4GB DDR2 | 250GB HD Games (win xp): E2160 @ 2.4Ghz | HD3850 OC | Asrock 4coredual-vsta | 2GB DDR2 | |
|
|
|
15th July 2006, 11:21
| #3 |
| Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| overclocking can cause corrupted data to be written to your little 'ol raid array, and with raid 0 there is no redudancy, so corruption is even more likely. I would steer clear from RAID0, only use it for scratch disk and data that can be "lost" nobody can predict that it will crash... but it's your loss if you do put valuable data on it 
__________________ |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| SATA RAID0 Question | Marv1n | Hardware/Software Problems, Bugs | 12 | 30th September 2004 14:24 |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
