BF2S Forums People who had RAID 0, do you regret it?

I run a RAID0 array for my Server/HTPC temp work folder. Makes extracting rars and repairing with par files much quicker. Works great that way for me.

I used to run a RAID0 as my windows boot partition, I did make daily automatic backups of it though. If one of the drives had failed, I could be up and running within an hour again. Also I never saved any important data to that array.

EDIT: Since my dads wanted speed on his system disk I set up a raid5 for him. Nearly as fast but will survive one drive dieing.

Last edited by max (2008-08-13 02:02:06)

jamiet757 wrote:

I have my C drive on 4 raptors in RAID 0 and my data on 2 160gb drives in RAID 0. I use an external HDD to backup my stuff every few weeks. I have never had any failures, it is possible that you just had a bad drive.

How exactly did it "die"?

Before it died, it started to make really loud clicking noise.  When it was seeking, it would make a screech noise.  Not a loud screech noise but audible enough to hear.

I don't regret using RAID 0, faster speed = thumbs up. I've had it fail once but somehow managed to recover it by deleting the RAID volume and making a new one then use the Windows DVD to correct the boot files. It loaded the OS and everything was still on it so got lucky there. Yea it might fail but if you loose all your data because you didn't back it up its your own fault.

I've used RAID0 arrays in many circumstances and have often had cause to regret it. Sometimes that extra transfer speed is great though. It makes a lot of stuff more awkward, is twice as likely to fail and in general decreases your hard drive performance (longer access times, which are what you tend to notice most). I did have a RAID0 array in my file server (which I have complete external backups of anyway) and that was great for serving big files over my home network, but that you're unlikely to notice much unless running a Gigabit LAN. Now I use a RAID5 in that - not for extra data security, but because it's easy to pull out failing drives and swap a new one in - whereas with RAID0 that's a pain in the arse.


RAID0 is a real pain when (not if) it goes wrong.

jamiet757 wrote:

Drykill wrote:

I don't regret using RAID 0, faster speed = thumbs up. I've had it fail once but somehow managed to recover it by deleting the RAID volume and making a new one then use the Windows DVD to correct the boot files. It loaded the OS and everything was still on it so got lucky there. Yea it might fail but if you loose all your data because you didn't back it up its your own fault.

Truth. Even people without a RAID array should backup their data, I have no sympathy for those who whine and complain because they lost their pictures or something, I have lost my share of stuff, now I back it up regularly.

I always back up my data every month.  I got caught with my pants down.

I don't have an extra hdd so I back up on DVD disks.  Right now I have over 250gb worth of stuff on disks, its alot more work but I trust having a disk more than a hdd to backup my data.

If I am going back to RAID 0, I'd better get another hard drive.

CrazeD wrote:

So, does RAID0 actually make your drives more prone to failure? I know that if one dies, you = fuckz0red...but does it make each drive more susceptible to failing?

afaik no

Of course.

I just hear a lot of horror stories with RAID0. Given that most hard drives last several years, it didn't make sense to me that RAID0 arrays regularly failed in less than a year. Must be bad luck then?

I run my OS install(s) off a striped-pair, and even my most bloated XP install boots in under 1min on a AthlonXP 3200+ with SATA150 HDDs.

And, touch wood, crossed fingers, etc, it's not failed yet.

But I'd never, never, never, EVER put data on a RAID0 striped-pair.

Yes, i have had RAID 0 on my old computer 4 times.  it failed 4 times, erasing everything on the disks.  Unfortunately, I opted out of backing up my data the first two times.  I had two 80gb WD hds.  I later found out that one drive was faulty and was replaced.  When I set it up for the 5th time, I decided to just run 2 separate drives.  it ran well like that until i retired the computer due to a part out.

I have a new computer now, I do not plan on ever using RAID 0 again due to my bad experience with it.  Although, when it worked, it was blazing fast.

Raid 0 is daring.

I did 1+0,  no troubles yet. But I tested it by removing a drive and substituting it ... worked great.

Volatile wrote:

link52787 wrote:

Now I have to look for another hard drive.  Sucks.

Those raptors have a 5 year warranty. Call WD, give them your  serial, and in 2 days you'll have a replacement.

Well, I've never dealt with WD, but that's how it is for seagate.

2 days?

I took me at least 2 weeks to get a replacement from Seagate...

Volatile wrote:

link52787 wrote:

Now I have to look for another hard drive.  Sucks.

Those raptors have a 5 year warranty. Call WD, give them your  serial, and in 2 days you'll have a replacement.

Well, I've never dealt with WD, but that's how it is for seagate.

whew.  I checked my warranty status and I am covered until 2011. 

I thought these things only have a 2 year warranty.  Bought these in 2006, thought it expired.