Quote
"Hey Les!
Every one is stating that Raid 0 is a risk.
If we compare an IDE setup with one disk .
And a Raid 0 setup as "one array disk" utilizing two disks .
Is there really a difference in the possibility to loose data?"
Hi SYAR2003:
No, there isn't any difference on the possibility of losing data, but for some reason most people think that Raid of any sort is more secure. It is the amount of data lost that makes the difference. Raid 0, of course is not terribly secure (no more than a single drive is secure), and that is what bears repeating.
This of couse assumes that the drives sizes are of equal size, say a raid 0 of 2x80GB and an ide 160GB drive. If you setup two 160GB drives as separate drives, ,if one goes bad, then you have only lost only 1/2 your data, whereas with a Raid 0 of 320GB (2x160GB Drives) you lose all your data - twice as much.
There is certainly more file security with a Raid 1 setup - if a drive fails then you simply replace it, rebuild your mirror and voila, everything is as before - no data loss. The caveat, of course is that you only have 1/2 the total drive space available and speed is down from what you can expect from a single drive or a raid 0.
It seemed to me that Atomicboy22's original question was regarding data security on a Raid 0, which is why I answered the way I did. Raid 0 is inherently insecure for data. It is built for speed, with no regard for data loss. Usually it is used in situations where speed is required and where data loss is an acceptable issue - i.e. the data is replaceable, but speed is not.
Situation 1 - say you are a graphics person. You are working in photoshop. You have images you wish to work on that you already have backed up to another format, say CDs. Photoshop is ram intensive and harddrive intensive program. It will benefit from a Raid 0 setup particularly in its use of a scratch disk. If you lose a drive in the raid 0, well, you current thing you are working on is gone, but if you save on a regular basis to another drive or media, then you have only lost what you are working on at that moment. You replace your failed drive, setup your Raid 0 again, paste on your operating system/program image file, reboot and away you go again. We are assuming here, that the additional gear to make all this happen is available to our imaginary graphics dude.
Situation 2 - a dedicated gamer with any of the newer 3D games. The use of the hard drive is intensive by these games and certainly a raid 0 setup for the operating system and the game program files will improve performance. Other than the game saves, the gamer doesn't really care about his data - all they want is better performance. Raid 0 will help. The operating system can always be reloaded and so can the game itself. So long as the game saves are backed up to another media, the gamer is good to go. This gamer desn't care about data, only about frame rates and winning. His raid 0 goes down, he replaces the dead drive, whines a lot about the time lost in which he could have been playing the game, reloads the operating system and is programs (from an image if this is the second time they've lost everything) and away they go again.
Situation 3 - informed home/business user. They understand and have read about Raid 0 and 1. They understand the value and necessity of backing up often and what needs to be backed up including things like email and favorites. They want more speed out of their computer and understand that the raid 0 will improve their speed, but at the cost of all their data if it a single drive fails. They enquire about backup solutions and use them. They are impressed with the performance increase they get from the Raid 0 and swear by it. Until a drive fails. Although they are completely backed up, they hate spending all that time to rebuild their system. Most of them, will not setup a raid 0 again.
Situation 4 - typical home/business user. This person has 2 x 120Gb drives, a cdr-w type drive and a decent home PC and only a vague idea of what backing up means (to a lot of them, this means putting their resume/accounting data on a floppy - I kid you not). They've heard about Raid and how fast Raid 0 is. They have the necessary components - two identical drives and a motherboard with raid on board. They setup the raid 0, load the operating system and their programs, hopefully remember to do all the Windows updates and mavel at the newfound speed. They sing the praises of raid 0, religiously backup their resume/accounting data, and are happy. Until the day a drive fails. Then everything is gone and they don't understand. They had a raid setup. It was supposed to be secure and fast. What happened?
There are of course many other situations other than these, however I have personally seen all of the four above, including situation 4 several times.
Raid 1 - mirroring is an entirely different issue. Very secure and works great - BUT you lose 1/2 your drive space and your performance is somewhat reduced depending on what raid solution your are using (onboard, raid card, software raid). Your files are constantly backed up
and your only worry for file security is what happens if someone breaks in and steals the computer or if there is a fire and the whole kit melts.
Hope this helps and is not just a meaningless ramble;
Les Gray
Let me know, and thanks for both your help