New MB/CPU/Ram Now win7 won't boot!

[jägermonsta]

redundancy is a perfect reason to run RAID...

[VaeVictis]

redundancy is a perfect reason to run RAID...

and you REALLY need that on a desktop? at the sacrifice of hard drive space, power consumption, noise, case space, and heat?

raid is ideal for servers yeah i guess i should have been more specific

[[BTF]Sigma]

Um, Hellooooo! I may want to ensure the safety of all my pr0ns. Gawd!

[jägermonsta]

redundancy is a perfect reason to run RAID...

and you REALLY need that on a desktop? at the sacrifice of hard drive space, power consumption, noise, case space, and heat?

raid is ideal for servers yeah i guess i should have been more specific

If you can... then why not? Your claims of sacrifice I don't feel outweigh the benefit of having a redundant drive. Even the miniscule performance increase from a RAID0 is all so necessary when your goal is to push your build to the limit. If you don't want to push high benchmark scores then fine, not necessary for you especially when things like power consumption, noise and case space are of your concerns... Some people build systems for different reasons than others, it's of your opinion what is necessary or not so you shouldn't be telling people what they REALLY need...

[VaeVictis]

redundancy is a perfect reason to run RAID...

and you REALLY need that on a desktop? at the sacrifice of hard drive space, power consumption, noise, case space, and heat?

raid is ideal for servers yeah i guess i should have been more specific

If you can... then why not? Your claims of sacrifice I don't feel outweigh the benefit of having a redundant drive. Even the miniscule performance increase from a RAID0 is all so necessary when your goal is to push your build to the limit. If you don't want to push high benchmark scores then fine, not necessary for you especially when things like power consumption, noise and case space are of your concerns... Some people build systems for different reasons than others, it's of your opinion what is necessary or not so you shouldn't be telling people what they REALLY need...

didnt say he couldnt or shouldnt, just said its not needed there is a difference

[jägermonsta]

didnt say he couldnt or shouldnt, just said its not needed there is a difference

it being not needed is your opinion. that was my point.

[VaeVictis]

didnt say he couldnt or shouldnt, just said its not needed there is a difference

it being not needed is your opinion. that was my point.

its not needed on any system, even high end servers... UNLESS you have to meet data integrity standards people just like it for its benefits

[jägermonsta]

its not needed on any system, even high end servers... UNLESS you have to meet data integrity standards people just like it for its benefits

I see, so you're just being a smart ass. Gotcha.

[[BTF]Sigma]

Thanks guys. Good points.

[quadz]

Um, Hellooooo! I may want to ensure the safety of all my pr0ns. Gawd!

Indeed.

These days I use raid 0 (striping for speed) supplemented by an external USB drive to which I run nightly backups.

I've tried raid 1 (mirroring) in the past.  (Would have tried raid 5 but never had a third disk to spare.)

There's nothing 'wrong' with raid 1 or raid 5, but neither is a substitute for a separate backup drive.

Raid 1 and 5 offer protection for a very specific failure case: when a drive physically dies in such a way that the failure can be detected before the filesystem becomes corrupted.  In that specific case, it works great: the system presents you with the opportunity to swap the bad drive out for a new one, the mirror is regenerated from the non-failed drive(s), and you're back up and running.

Unfortunately, at least in my experience, that particular scenario represents only a small slice on the pie chart of reasons why a backup drive is useful to me.

Because for every other case where something can go wrong that doesn't involve a drive failing, one has to remember that raid 1 or 5 will immediately replicate the problem to all volumes in the set.

Examples include: filesystem corruption, malware infection, the "oops" factor of accidentally deleting files, etc.

In all of those cases, the RAID system dutifully and instantly replicates the 'problem' across all volumes in the set.

For this reason, it's my preference to have a separate backup drive to which I run manual (nightly) backups.

Of course, one could always run RAID 1 or 5 in addition to having a separate backup volume.  But I would never recommend mirrored raid as a substitute for a separate backup volume.


Regards,

quadz

[VaeVictis]

i figured generally raid was best used in servers with hot swap drives so you can have 100% up time say a linux server running a good file system like ext4 that wont error as easily as ntfs because its journaled, one of the 10 drives in the server's bearings start to go out, just pull the drive, pop a new one in, and it regenerates raid 5 is really the way to go if you have the spare drives for it

and on a funny note... sata is technically hot swappable xD though windows might be a little pissed