cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

RAID 0 setup...how reliable are they now?

jorlanm
Level 7
Ok I had used RAID 0 before like back 10 years ago...I used 2 Seagate 80GB SATA with a PCI SATA Controller card running on Windows XP Professional.

Yes the performance increase was noticable...However after 3 months or so I started loosing data, start getting corrupted files, crashing HDD...eventualy both HDD's died within 6 months.

I had never used a RAID setup again ever since.

But now I recently acquired a new Laptop...an ALIENWARE M17x R4 3D (I gave my ASUS G73SW-3DE to my brother) with the following specs...

-Soft Touch Stealth Black
-3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-3720QM
-IC Diamond Thermal Compound on CPU + GPU
-Genuine Windows® 7 Ultimate, 64bit
-2GB GDDR5 NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680M
-17.3-inch WideFHD 1920 x 1080 120Hz NVIDIA 3D Vision Bundle
-Anti-Glare Screen Protector for M17x, Installed
-16GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1600MHz (4DIMMS)
-500GB 7,200 RPM HDD
(Ill Be installing my 2 of my Seagate Momentus XT soon as I get the laptop)
-Samsung 32GB mSATA Caching SSD
-Slot-Loading Dual Layer Blu-Ray Burner
-90 WHr 9-Cell Lithium-Ion Battery
-240 Watt 3 Prong AC Adapter with 6 ft Power Cord
(I heard the M18x 330w adapter works as well...Ill purchase it soon)
-Killer™ Wireless-N 1202 a/g/n 2x2 MIMO BlueTooth 4.0 for Gaming & Video
-1 Year Basic Service Plan with Technical Support
-Nameplate "M17x"
(pre-configured model, cant customize...oh well)
-Steam and Portal™ Factory Installed

Like I mentioned above Ill be putting 2 of my existing Seagate Momentus XT 500GB HDD from my G73sw to the new M17x. Im really thinking about setting it up with RAID 0 even though I have that 32GB mSATA Cache drive.

Are RAID 0 setup reliable now? Is it even worth it even though theres a 32GB mSATA Cache drive?
-ASUS ROG G73SW-3DE-
-Intel Core i7-2630QM Mobile Quad Processor
-Intel HM65 Express Chipset +ICH10
-17.3" 1920x1080 120Hz Anti-Glare Matte Screen
-nVidia GeForce GTX 460m 1.5GB GDDR5 VRAM
-nVidia 3D Vision Active Shutter Glasses
-Creative EAX Advanced HD 5.0
-THX TruStudio
-8GB DDR3 1333MHz RAM (Max 32GB)
-2x500 Seagate Momentous XT Hybrid HDD
-Blu-Ray 4x Burner
-Logitech Performance MX Darkfield Laser Mice
-Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

-XBOX360, PS3, Wii
9,929 Views
12 REPLIES 12

HiVizMan
Level 40
RAID 0 is fast with SSD's. And the RAID array is only as stable or as strong as the weakest SSD or mechanical hard drive if you want to go that route.

Bottom line is this. With SSD's it is always going to be a risk to have your OS and or important data on a RAID 0 array. The speed you gain with the stripped set up looks really impressive with benchmarks but it is hard to tell the different between RAID 0 and RAID 1 in day to day use. I do not recommend anyone using a RAID 0 array for important data. There is no redundancy in a RAID 0 array.

If you do go RAID 0 array, ensure you do regular back ups of all key data and game saves. It can fail at any time without any warning as I am many many others have found out.

Now the doom and gloom stuff aside, like most things in the PC world 10 years is a couple of lifetimes and RAID arrays and the chipsets that support them have come a long long way. Can not really compare to even 5 years past.

Good luck.
To help us help you - please provide as much information about your system and the problem as possible.

Gorman
Level 12
Depends on the raid controller.

I've maintained plenty of RAID arrays with 0 problems. I've seen plenty of single drives fail.

Gorman wrote:
Depends on the raid controller.

I've maintained plenty of RAID arrays with 0 problems. I've seen plenty of single drives fail.


Quite agree and it was for that very reason that I repeatedly stated the value of redundancy and suggest that a RAID 1 array would be more robust due to its built in redundancy.
To help us help you - please provide as much information about your system and the problem as possible.

Gorman
Level 12
Yup. I would suggest any RAID level that supports single disk redundancy. It's unusual for disk failure to go undetected long enough for a second disk to fail. If you have single disk redundancy then you can still get a speed boost (eg 2x speed boost + redundancy off 3 drives).

cl-scott
Level 12
If you want to be technical, RAID 0 isn't really RAID, since there's no redundancy. That being said, I don't think a RAID 0 setup is really any more or less reliable as it has ever been. You're still at the mercy of the poorest quality component in the chain.

So no matter what, I'm reminded of an axiom that is something of a mantra of sysadmins everywhere: You only lose what you don't back up.

Gorman
Level 12
Ouchi's 1978 patent described the RAID 5 level and mentioned RAID 0 and RAID 1. So it has existed from the start.
RAID 0 is also discussed in Patterson et al, 1987 - back when RAID referred to inexpensive disks. So even in the old specification it existed.
Additionally RAID 0 is a standard RAID level as described by SNIA's Common RAID Disk Drive Format (DDF) standard, whose member list includes Dell, IBM, Oracle, Intel, Fujitsi, HP, Synamtec, Hitachi, Microsoft, VMWare, Huawei, Cisco, Samsung, Seagate, Toshiba, SanDisk, Western Digital, Cray, etc, etc, etc.

But I'm sure technically an international standard backed by every major IT organisation in the world is incorrect and you are, because of a semantic nuance of a name that was selected offhand in the mid 80's...

cl-scott
Level 12
Well, correct me if I'm wrong here, but RAID stands for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. So if you can explain to me how RAID 0 is redundant, I will happily concede the point to you. Otherwise, I stand by the fact that technically it's not RAID, because there's no redundancy. Just like there's technically no red or black licorice, there's just plain licorice which is black. Or technically kleenex is a specific brand, even though a lot of people call all tissues kleenex.

Technically, there is a reason I said technically... And technically, when a person says technically, they mean that the distinction is noteworthy, but technically they are not challenging that RAID 0 is technically RAID.

Arne_Saknussemm
Level 40
RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks. No redundancy no RAID. RAID 0 was not a RAID type when raid was originally touted for that reason.

11517

To OP...

RAID 0 is statistically exactly as unreliable as it ever was. Take any two drives and half the MTBF (mean time before failure) or double any chance of failure within a given time....for two disks (3 worse etc.etc.). Just have to decide if MTBFs are getting better or not and if you think you will have bought new disks before half their lifespan is up......which might well be the case.

All this is academic if you back-up!:D

Gorman
Level 12
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that technically technically doesn't technically mean technically, technically speaking. [/sarcasm]

If you mean to say "in my opinion" but instead say "technically", you are going to have a bad time.


The distinction is not noteworthy in any way because;
A. OP specifically asks about RAID 0 so he does not care whether "in my opinion that isn't RAID"
B. Due to internationally recognized standard RAID 0 is a standard RAID level
C. The distinction is only due to, as I already mentioned, a semantic nuance from a name that was chose in the mid 80's.
D. By definition RAID 0 is RAID 0

Are you going to start posting on WoW forums saying "Guys this isn't a MMORPG because you aren't really playing a role are you, you are just being yourself, it's not immersive enough to say this is a role playing game. Technically (in my opinion) WoW is just a MMOG"

It's stupid and pointless to try and overrule industry standards just because you don't like it.
You didn't say "RAID 0 is the only RAID level not to have redundancy", you said "RAID 0 isn't really RAID". This is not only not noteworthy, it is dead wrong.