AVS Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Starting build today. Wondering if I should put the 2x 3tb hdd's in Raid 0. or Just leave them as separate drives? Would I see any real significant performance increase. If so, would that increase be worth the loss of all files should one of the two fail?

Build List: Cooler Master N200 Case
Gigabyte Z97 motherboard with an Intel i5-4690s (low power)
Dark power 550w 80+gold PSU
8 gb ripjaw ram
64gb ADATA SSD
2x 3TB Seagate HDD
Corsair H60 closed loop water cooler
and an ASUS Bluray drive
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Starting build today. Wondering if I should put the 2x 3tb hdd's in Raid 0. or Just leave them as separate drives? Would I see any real significant performance increase. If so, would that increase be worth the loss of all files should one of the two fail?

Build List: Cooler Master N200 Case
Gigabyte Z97 motherboard with an Intel i5-4690s (low power)
Dark power 550w 80+gold PSU
8 gb ripjaw ram
64gb ADATA SSD
2x 3TB Seagate HDD
Corsair H60 closed loop water cooler
and an ASUS Bluray drive
RAID-0 will be approximately 2x as fast as a single drive on local file access. If most access is going to be across a network the increased performance will likely never be noticed. If you will be accessing the drives locally then the types of activities you plan on doing with the drives will be the determining factor of how much you'll actually notice any performance gains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
While Gaming will not be primary use, it will be used for light gaming. However most media files will be locally accessed. However my second desktop will probably handle most of the downloading of new content, and transfer over network to the HTPC. I'm still at a toss up whether or not I want to RAID.

It's really a 50/50 decision for me right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
While Gaming will not be primary use, it will be used for light gaming. However most media files will be locally accessed. However my second desktop will probably handle most of the downloading of new content, and transfer over network to the HTPC. I'm still at a toss up whether or not I want to RAID.

It's really a 50/50 decision for me right now.
My approach for my HTPC's is to use a pair of drives in a RAID 0 array for locally recorded TV and an SSD drive for the operating system. I get snappy performance from the SSD and I lose nothing of importance should the RAID 0 array fail.

win-win.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
While Gaming will not be primary use, it will be used for light gaming. However most media files will be locally accessed. However my second desktop will probably handle most of the downloading of new content, and transfer over network to the HTPC. I'm still at a toss up whether or not I want to RAID.

It's really a 50/50 decision for me right now.
I have a RAID-0 or my workstation right now, but it is only used for temporary storage. I don't keep anything on it.

I can't tell you how important your data is to you. Only you can determine that. If it's not important (or if you have a complete backup elsewhere) then RAID-0 is likely a fine choice.

If you need the extra performance, then that need might outweigh the increased risk of data loss. If you'd just like to have it, it might not be a great idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ilovejedd

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,714 Posts
While Gaming will not be primary use, it will be used for light gaming
The light amount of gaming should try it's best to find it's way to the ssd instead

However most media files will be locally accessed
When most media files are accessed locally, they typically need 1/20th the raw disk throughput of those drives. Blu-Ray 1.5x is 6.75MB/s and the seagate (to which I assume you are referring to using ST3000DM001) can easily top 150MB/s

However my second desktop will probably handle most of the downloading of new content, and transfer over network to the HTPC
You won't be limited by the disk speed of those drives in that case
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,714 Posts
It would be simpler and less failure points, as you already know, to use each one as it's own drive letter

If you need more performance for some reason that wasn't mentioned that would be the deciding factor

Personally I favor simplicity for a very long way before I'll introduce complexity and additional failure/troubleshooting points for additional performance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It would be simpler and less failure points, as you already know, to use each one as it's own drive letter

If you need more performance for some reason that wasn't mentioned that would be the deciding factor

Personally I favor simplicity for a very long way before I'll introduce complexity and additional failure/troubleshooting points for additional performance
I ended up not putting them into RAID.
my main PC's HDD started failing last month, and was very difficult to get data off it. so for simplicity's sake, I'll just assign each their own drive number.

Thanks for the input. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing out on something that would make me regret not doing it later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Raid zero is just a bad idea for anything you care about... Its hard to reconstruct if one disk in your array goes out. +1 on the ssd comment
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top