oh ok, i wasnt quite sure on how it was worded, thanks.Praetor said:(btw i edited your poll so the last entry is actually correct and/or useful)
If you're not concerned about data reliability, RAID0 is good: you get performance boost there (although I'd argue harddrives are so slow anyways that you wont notice much of a difference unless you regularly copying large blocks of data at a time .. aka sequential read/write ... random read/writes not gonna be majorly improved). If you're anal about not losing data, RAID1 is a perfect start.I've begun to think about getting a RAID 0/1 array.
well after the fact that i almost lost all of my data, i would prefer going with the 0/1 so i can have the reliability of RAID1, with the performance of RAID 0. Only thing keeping me from doing this is that i dont feel like buying 4 hard drives and onyl being able to use 2 for storage.Praetor said:If you're not concerned about data reliability, RAID0 is good: you get performance boost there (although I'd argue harddrives are so slow anyways that you wont notice much of a difference unless you regularly copying large blocks of data at a time .. aka sequential read/write ... random read/writes not gonna be majorly improved). If you're anal about not losing data, RAID1 is a perfect start.
Now until you get into anally redundant configurations, RAID5 should fill in the rest of the requirements![]()
In that case, have a look at RAID5: instead of 2*N, you're using N+1 solutionOnly thing keeping me from doing this is that i dont feel like buying 4 hard drives and onyl being able to use 2 for storage.
thanks, i'll look into that.Praetor said:In that case, have a look at RAID5: instead of 2*N, you're using N+1 solution