> I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea. > The reason > is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one fails, you > lose all the data. It's better to split the files up among many, smaller > logical drives. It's great from a performance standpoint but that's about > it. RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 are much better ideas. > > Paul Wilson
I disagree that it's a bad idea. It's no more "unsafe" than a single disk. MTBF is NOT additive. RAID 0 IS the fastest, and if that's what you need, then it's a good idea. Also, if you are using it as a data store, which is typically what RAID is used for, instead of a main system disk, then you SHOULD be backing up. I have dozens of hard disks in my multiple machines, and haven't had a failure in years, and they are on 24/7/365. The MTBF of the drives is far less than the next technology leap that I replace the disks for anyway.
