Question about RAID setup

[balzak]

I just ordered a couple 640GB drives. Intention being to set up a RAID 1 configuration on my home desktop.

Now I'm considering going a different direction. I like the advantages of RAID0 - double storage space and performance increases. But, the obvious disadvantage is there is no backup WHEN one of the drives takes a dump. It only takes one HDD crash that you weren't prepared for...

Of course, I could order 2 more drives and take advantage of both. But, the idea of 4 HDD's spinning turns me off. Power consumption, heat, etc.

What about a 3 HDD configuration? I was thinking about snagging up a third 1.5TB HDD and using it as a mirror (for the 2x 640GB HDDs in RAID0). I don't know if you can do this using RAID (anyone?).

But, I figured if nothing else I could just get a backup utility that automatically makes a backup every night, which would have a couple added benefits: (1) I could roll back completely to the previous day if I really screwed something up and (2) the third drive wouldn't need to spend much time spinning, sucking power, and creating heat. It seems this would also give me plenty of space to safely store photos and such.

Any notable shortcomings with the 3rd HDD nightly backup method?

[NorCal Einstein]

What about a 3 HDD configuration? I was thinking about snagging up a third 1.5TB HDD and using it as a mirror (for the 2x 640GB HDDs in RAID0). I don't know if you can do this using RAID (anyone?).

But, I figured if nothing else I could just get a backup utility that automatically makes a backup every night, which would have a couple added benefits: (1) I could roll back completely to the previous day if I really screwed something up and (2) the third drive wouldn't need to spend much time spinning, sucking power, and creating heat. It seems this would also give me plenty of space to safely store photos and such.

Any notable shortcomings with the 3rd HDD nightly backup method?

The 3 HDD configuration would be RAID5 I believe.

The nightly backup method is a little kludgy in my opinion, but I think it would work. If the data you're putting on these disks is mission-critical, I would not personally be doing RAID0. The chances of things getting screwed are too high, and then it's never fun restoring from your backups.

[meaty-btz]

Are those consumer grade drives?

If so Raid 5 is safer choice.

Raid 0 is like looking down the barrel of gun and pulling the trigger to see if it is loaded.

[balzak]

Are those consumer grade drives?

If so Raid 5 is safer choice.

Raid 0 is like looking down the barrel of gun and pulling the trigger to see if it is loaded.

Because you have twice the chances of a failure, right?

[MA2]

RAID-0 on new/modern hard drives will yield not much difference for normal usage.
Just test it out for about a couple of weeks if RAID-0 is worth it for you.
Power consumption, (windows?) just use the power features to power down the hard drives, or hibernate the pc.

(only 3-drives;RAID-5 on a software controller; not sure if there is even much performance gains)

[NorCal Einstein]

(only 3-drives;RAID-5 on a software controller; not sure if there is even much performance gains)

The performance gain is ok, not great in RAID5

[oldsmoboat]

RAID-0 on new/modern hard drives will yield not much difference for normal usage.
Just test it out for about a couple of weeks if RAID-0 is worth it for you.
Power consumption, (windows?) just use the power features to power down the hard drives, or hibernate the pc.

(only 3-drives;RAID-5 on a software controller; not sure if there is even much performance gains)

This. I don't see the advantage any more. Years ago, if you didn't run scsi, yes. Today, I run VelociRaptor drives. But I haven't tried SSD.

[NorCal Einstein]

You MUST try SSDs. They are just absolutely amazing. I replaced most of my computers with SSDs, but I made the mistake of buying them all at around the same point in time. With the prices coming down and storage space coming up....that was a decision I'm kicking myself over.

[balzak]

RAID-0 on new/modern hard drives will yield not much difference for normal usage.
Just test it out for about a couple of weeks if RAID-0 is worth it for you.
Power consumption, (windows?) just use the power features to power down the hard drives, or hibernate the pc.

(only 3-drives;RAID-5 on a software controller; not sure if there is even much performance gains)

The mobo I will be using supports RAID 5. I wouldn't consider using a software RAID setup.

After reading about RAID 5, it sounds like a good option. Three HDDs would provide the same amount of space as two HDDs in RAID 0, but with the redundancy advantage.

It seems the biggest drawback of RAID 5 is the "rebuild" time when one fails. From what I've read, it could be 5-10 hours for the size of drives I plan to use. If another of the three drives fails during that window you're screwed. But, in my experience, it seems even identical drives have random lifespans. I would guess the chance of two or more failing at essentially the same time would be pretty low.

[KaHuNaZ]

what kind of drives did you get?

[meaty-btz]

Because you have twice the chances of a failure, right?

not just failure chance... its that its unrecoverable in the case of any failure. My jest was more to point out that it is considered suicidal to run 0.

[MA2]

The mobo I will be using supports RAID 5. I wouldn't consider using a software RAID setup.

Yes, physically it is a hardware connect (even with a bios to look real...LoL), but it is software controlled.
Nothing RAID onboard is real hardware (real hardware->(chip/CPU/memory) would cost about ~200 for a cheap one to get decent RAID5 performance).
Software @ RAID5...really not that great.
I might be wrong with these faster CPU's and memory these days, but they still do make dedicated controller cards for servers for a reason

Oh, yes SSD is the way to go if you want real fast boot/app opening

[balzak]

Yes, physically it is a hardware connect (even with a bios to look real...LoL), but it is software controlled.
Nothing RAID onboard is real hardware (real hardware->(chip/CPU/memory) would cost about ~200 for a cheap one to get decent RAID5 performance).
Software @ RAID5...really not that great.
I might be wrong with these faster CPU's and memory these days, but they still do make dedicated controller cards for servers for a reason

Oh, yes SSD is the way to go if you want real fast boot/app opening

Yeah, SSD is awesome. But, the prices for that technology will probably need to drop around 50% before I hand over the cash.

[mike452]

Why 640GB? How much did you pay? I just purchased two 2TB Hitachi for $80 each.

RAID5 uses 3+ drives of the same size. Adding a 3rd 1.5TB will only use 640GB.

Your idea of a backup drive for the important data is not going to work. You will end up with 1 copy on your 1.5TB backup drive. That's when it will fail! Happened to me...

[NytWolf]

The 3 HDD configuration would be RAID5 I believe.

No, not in the sense that OP was asking. RAID 5 would be 3 (or more, n) drives of same size, with data written across the first 2 (or n-1) and the parity bit on the last drive.

What about a 3 HDD configuration? I was thinking about snagging up a third 1.5TB HDD and using it as a mirror (for the 2x 640GB HDDs in RAID0). I don't know if you can do this using RAID (anyone?).

Won't happen. Your mirror has to be identical to your source. Meaning, you can get 2 more 640GB HDDs to mirror your original 640GB HDDs. But I don't know if you can mirror RAID 0 setups. You can however, mirror two RAID 5 configurations. That would be a RAID 10 (not "ten", but "one-zero")

But, I figured if nothing else I could just get a backup utility that automatically makes a backup every night, ...

Any notable shortcomings with the 3rd HDD nightly backup method?

That is possible, with a 3rd HDD to be used as a backup-only disc. Just keep in mind, you will be backing up only the data and not the parity bits. But wouldn't that scenario defeat the purpose of RAID?