My point is that, with RAID 0, if one disk fails the data on all the disks is lost. Also, MTBF is additive in this case because of what I previously said. You've got more than one set of platters and heads to fail and any one of them failing blows away the data. I realize the chances of problems are very small but drives do still fail. My day job is architecting and administering very large database systems (1 Terabyte RAIDS) and I do see drives fail. I'd never use RAID 0 for one of these systems.
For typical use though, you are right that it's very unlikely to be a problem. I just think it's kind of unnecessary unless there's a justified need for performance. Video editing would be a good example. To keep this remotely on topic, I just ordered a Minolta Scan Multi Pro. I should have it in 2 weeks. Paul Wilson > -----Original Message----- > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > > 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. >
