RAID 0 or RAID 1?

Which is better for Fujitsu Amilo Xi 1546 with 2x100Gb HDD if I'm after optimum performance and fastest readtimes, RAID 0 or RAID 1? I have red that RAID 0 might affect reliability and that RAID 1 takes away the other 100Gb. I propably don't need so much HD space, but is the performance boost really worth the sacrifice in either case? Is there heat issues? I use the notebook for image editing, surfing internet, watching movies and heavy gaming..

 

Raid 0 would boost performance, raid 1 would not. Raid 0 is "unreliable" because if one harddrive fails you will lose all your data. Raid 1 works so that is one harddrive fails you still have all your data in the other harddrive, but its a bit slower, and you dont get 200gb, just 100gb.

 

If performance and speed is important more than anything else, then RAID 0 is the best. It'll pure and simply write/read to both disks fastest. However, if one disk fails, then its not so good. Recovering the data is almost impossible, I think.

RAID 1 is still fairly fast, but not as fast as RAID 0. It'll write/read both disks, but it'll make a copy of the data on one disk. It all depends if you want to risk the chance, for data to become lost if a disk fails. Bear in mind, its unlikely for a disk to fail.

 

One isn't better than the other, its a matter of personal preference.

A RAID 0 configuration (aka striped set) splits the data evenly across two disks with no redundancy, meaning you would have 200 GB of space with your drives. However, if one of those drives dies, you've just lost the information on both (because of how its splits the info). On the otherhand, I think there are marginal performance gains.

For RAID 0 from wikipedia:

RAID 1 takes away the 100 GB and makes a backup of everything you do on the master drive. That way, if one of them konks out, you still have the back up drive (which is a mirror image of the drive that crapped out).

 

wow. I totally got worked on reply time....When I started there were no replies....8)

So I'll add this:

I would go with RAID 1 because I would never be able to fill 100gb, let alone 200 gb. And I would rather not risk all of my info for something I would never be able to fill. Also, I think the performance gains are negligible.

Again from wiki:

In essence, if you write any kind of big file, write time would be chopped in half. Example: you need to write a file that's exactly 1024 bytes. Disk 1 would start writing the first 512 of that while Disk 2 would write the other 512 simultaneously. As for read time of that same file(boot times etc.), Disk 1 would seek and start reading the first 512 while Disk 2 would seek the next 512 and be ready to read it by the time Disk 1 is finished with the 1st 512.

Were this my computer, I'd say screw the raid and stick with a single high rpm disk.

 

Yes, I would choose one 100 gb 7200rp drive over those two if there were an opt. I'm also reading that wiki. I propably set up to RAID 1. It's still better than keeping it OFF. I want to get something from the extra disk. It seems that RAID 1 would give a little faster readtimes and raise reliability to the second. I would like to know how this shows in use and is there more heat? How does it compare against 7200rpm HD, would it still be a lot faster?

 

You don't get more heat from a RAID 1 configuration than you would get from simply having two disks end to end. And, unless they are running full speed 100% of the time (rendering, gaming, etc.) hard drive heat will be negligible compared to GPU heat.

As for use, I've only set them up (well...actually I've only done it once), not used them. But I doubt that you'll notice a 2nd drive and I hear that performance/stability doesn't suffer.

 

Ok, thanks for your help. Xi 1546 is available here 21.7. so hopefully I get it then.. now doing some research, before buying

 

Hard drive heat isn't always negligible. Sure, it's a lot less than what you get from a GPU or even CPU, but it's in an area that usually has poor air circulation, and unlike a GPU, the HD can't handle temperatures around 130 C.
Keep an eye on that if you plan to have more than a few HD's installed.

And like said above, RAID 1 gives you normal speed, half disk capacity (2 200GB disks only gives you 200GB available), but you're pretty much safe against data loss. (if a disk fails, you'll be able to keep running from the remaining disk)

RAID 0 gives you better performance (in some cases. Transferring large files is *much* faster, and loading/booting may or may not be, depending on fragmentation and what it is that's being loaded). It's perfectly possible to get normal (or slower than normal) load times too, because seek time suffers a bit with RAID 0. However, you get to use your full disk capacity (2 200GB disks will give you 400GB disk space), but you're very vulnerable to disk failure. (If either disk dies, *all* your data goes with it)

RAID 0 is mostly a "look how cool my computer is" feature. It's rarely actually useful or beneficial.

 

"look how cool my computer is"

well put.

 

I wouldn't really say rarely useful. Maybe not for an average user, but I'm sure a lot of people on this forum don't really qualify as an average user.

 

Are you sure they are 7200rpm units? The xi 1546 only gets specd in the UK with 5400rpm drives.But you get the option of RAID 0,RAID 1 or just running two hdd's as normal,which in your case sounds like the best option.

 

No they are not 7200rpm. But I would change those two 5400rpm drives for one 7200rpm if it was possible within the warranty. One 7200rpm drive is propably a lot faster than two 5400rpm in RAID. I really don't need the extra 100Gb. I need speed..

 

Sure? I'd expect most people here to be notebook users. Notebooks are *very* rarely used for file servers or the like.

Still, you may be right. My point was just that RAID 0 is only really faster when transfering really big files from a non-fragmented drive, and considering it for your desktop system is usually a waste of money. (Note the "usually" )
A lot of people buy RAID 0 setups simply because they think it's "cool" and will make everything faster. It won't.
That is a kinda rare scenario (Ripping DVD's would be one example. There's a lot of HD traffic there. Plain copying of files is another, or running big databases. But I can't think of too much else.)