add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

To RAID or not to RAID (and not RAID 0), that is the question. . . .

Lawyerman1000
  • 45 months ago

Hi Everyone. Thanks in advance for your opinions on my question..

I am building my first PC once all the parts are delivered. I'm pretty excited about the whole thing. Based upon my family's usage, I have purchased a Samsung 850 512GB SSD drive on which I will run the OS and other core programs. But, I have also bought 3 very large, identical, mechanical drives (WD Black Series). The question I have is whether I should consider setting 2 of the WD HDD disks to RAID 1. (I've never had a disk crash in all my years of computing (early 90s), but obviously I know that it could happen.)

Setting those two disks to RAID 1 basically takes away one of those HDDs and makes them moot (because it is essentially a backup to the other drive). Correct? Why spend all that money when you can buy an external backup drive for much cheaper? Am I missing something?

Comments

  • 45 months ago
  • 2 points

Try RAID 5. It's a "little" more complex but the whole idea behind an internal, redundant array is not having to pop-the-top to do a quick drive change. And, if one drive goes down, you can instantly switch the PC back on and the RAID controller should automatically resort to the backup drive, so downtime (depending on the boot time) is less than 5 mins.

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

Then I should get a RAID controller card.... From what I can gather, you don't want to run anything other than RAID 0 or RAID 1 from the motherboard....

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

Not necessarily... Typically RAID's 5, 6, 10, and above involve 6+ drives as those are, technically, server RAIDs, not intended for consumers. However, it's works just the same, and you'd be fine with the on-board RAID controller.

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

---This. A RAID 5 is what you want here OP. You should be able to run it without any real problems from the MOBO.

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

Assuming the mobo supports raid 5 :)

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

RAID 1 mirrors your data across two or more drives for data redundancy. RAID 0 stripes your data across two or more drives for speed. The problem with RAID 0 is that if one HDD fails then almost all if not all data stored in the RAID array is lost. If you want to have the performance of RAID 0 with the redundancy of RAID 1, consider RAID 10 (which is RAID 1 + RAID 0) or RAID 5.

  • 45 months ago
  • 1 point

I think I'll try the RAID 5 setup. I'll lose some storage but it will give me some security at the end of the day. Thanks for the good advice.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube