2x500GB in a s/w RAID 0 or 1 1TB drive?

[Chupa Chupa]

What is going to be faster...

2 500GB drives in a s/w RAID 0

OR

A single 1 TB drive?

Either way I'll be using Seagate 7200.11 drives. Two 500GB ".11" drives is about $30 less than a single TB ".11" drive.

 

[smogsy]

i have 4x1tb in raid 0 i used to have 1tb

i have the seagate 7200.11 1TB 32mb

get 2x500GB in raid0

with 1TB i got 80m/s

with 4x1tb i get 330/340m/s

raid can be faster but just remember to backup your work double chances of you losing data due to 1 could die

 

[Chupa Chupa]

i have 4x1tb in raid 0 i used to have 1tb

i have the seagate 7200.11 1TB 32mb

get 2x500GB in raid0

with 1TB i got 80m/s

with 4x1tb i get 330/340m/s

raid can be faster but just remember to backup your work double chances of you losing data due to 1 could die

Thanks. And yes, I always back up. Learned that lesson the hard way. Ironically, the last time I had a drive die it was the backup, not the main drive.

 

[smogsy]

unlucky

thoses results was on my qaudcore vista pc though just to let u know

 

[roland.g]

mirrored RAID. 1TB + 1TB mirror. Add a 2nd 1TB mirror to take offsite daily for fire safety. Don't use an onsite fireproof safe, as they are usually only rated for 1 hour of protection.

 

[CanadaRAM]

O'course, a mirrored RAID 1 is no speed benefit -- it may be a slow down.

The thing is, with software RAID what you gain on disk access you lose with sw overhead. For most single user machines, it is better to have 2 individual disks, and split you tasks up among the disks -- data on one drive, application on another, scratch disk on another if you have a 3rd. This allows the independent sets of heads to remain in place on the data, without continually having to shuttle back and forth between the different tasks, as it would on one large drive.

About the only time you see RAID 0 being a benefit in a single-user system is where you have sustained, large transfers, such as capturing HD video.