Proper use of RAID 0

[wctyler]

I see many instances where systems are set up with the OS on a single drive, and the RAID 0 array is used for data (maybe programs, I dunno). Is that proper? Or rather, is it improper to have your array being your main drive?

I do that myself. I have two WD20 gigs in RAID 0 as my main drive. I'm hesitant to install the OS elsewhere because I enjoy having the extra speed of RAID when it comes to booting and the vast disk access that the OS does as it loads.

Am I doing it all wrong?

nope you can do that. i did it for about 2 hours but raid seemed slower for some reason.

here is where the problem comes in with using raid as the main drive

with a single drive if it dies there is a better chance of getting some data back that on a raid 0 since the information is spread across two drives

It is a personal choice. Considering RAID 0 offers no data redundancy, I prefer to leave the OS on a single drive, thus substantially lowering the possibility of OS failure due to data corruption or drive failure.

However, if you have no problem re-installing the OS or software in case of a drive failure, then it is perfectly fine to install the OS to a RAID 0 configuration.

Robert Richmond

[wctyler]

Yea, I have no problem not having redundancy. If I had a single drive, it'd be the same problem. I'm out for speed here. It's just a workstation.... I can perhaps understand that issue with a server. I keep nothing critical on it, and my spare 10 gig drive is there for online backup purposes.

Since data corruption is not a concern, then you are good to go.

[Foggy]

My solution for the lack of redundancy on a Raid-0 system is to ghost the entire sys. to a separate HDD in a mobile rack, once I get the sys. up and running the way I want and as long as it is OK I ghost it once a week, it kills two birds with one stone i.e. backup and never having to reinstall, if it goes gunny sack i'm up and running in less then 20 min.

[John Prophet]

I havent actually used raid...so I speak only theoretically....but I dont really see the point of having the raid array for storing data...to me that is backwards....unless you use apps where there is a lot of fast data fetching needed.....but of course you would need a good daily backup scheme cuz you have your data in about the worst scenario possible...you have it where if EITHER drive has an issue, you lose it all.

Whereas I can sort of see the OS being on the raid array because if you have it set up right, the data is stored on another drive....but this way you have the OS running on the slightly faster setup...and maybe the actual app itself would be on the raid array with the app data being on single drive.

Or, you could just go with the best of both worlds....RAID 10 or 0+1.

[jmichna]

Here's some excellent RAID information/reference material from StorageReview.com...

"Reference Guide to Hard Drives":
http://www.storagereview.com/guide20...hdd/index.html

"Redundant Arrays of of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)":
http://www.storagereview.com/guide20.../raid/why.html

I've always found the information to be clear, easy-to-understand, and it reviews the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of RAID.

[sechs]

The FAQ may also be of use:
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php

There is a section on RAID.