Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: "Jonny" <spamyourself@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:36:08 -0500
"Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23qUNBR9HGHA.1124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thank you all for your thoughts. I love the discussions that come up.
>
> I did want to at least consider the newer technology. After input from
> this
> group and an inquiry to Seagate I've decided that if I don't have a need
> for
> it, I can leave the RAID setup alone. I began questioning the subject
> when
> Micron (MPC) told me that I could not get a Millennia desktop that was NOT
> RAID. (I would have to go to their ClientPro, which offered way less in
> options.) As it turns out, their "Professional" Millennia is offered in
> non-RAID, and this will probably be my choice. My main priority is
> reliability. I'll get my own increase in speed by going from a 733MHz to
> a
> 3.2G! It's amazing how tempting it can be to unnecessarily complicate my
> computing experience just for the knowledge that I have the latest
> technology.
>
> Thanks,
> Ellen Hall
>
> "Glen" <gp2002hwREMOVEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23IlGW55HGHA.1728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I'm using two 250GB serial 150 drives in RAID 0 and can tell you it is
> fast.
>> I keep backups to another drive so I'm not too worried about corrupt
>> data.
>> Do it like me and have two drives in RAID 0 and a third drive for backups
>> nad you are protected agains most things.
>>
>> Glen P
>>
>>
>> "Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:e$R6fLuHGHA.3036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > I'm looking at buying a new XP computer. I have been researching
> whether
>> > to
>> > choose a RAID setup or a non-RAID. The RAID comes with an "Integrated
>> > Serial ATA RAID controller." Of the RAID, RAID 0 seems like the
>> > logical
>> > choice (I have no special data protection needs to warrant the
>> > mirroring
>> > of
>> > RAID 1, the other choice). Getting the performance boost sounds great.
>> > What I'm considering, though, is that I may be just fine with the older
>> > SATA-type setup that I have in my 98SE computer. I back up my data.
>> >
>> > If I choose the non-RAID configuration, will I be "behind the times" as
>> > far
>> > a technology goes? Is there a compelling reason to consider the RAID
>> > performance, where data recover may be more challenging if there's a
>> > problem?
>> >
>> > Thanks for any thoughts!
>> > Ellen Hall
>> >
Along with the RAID 1 offering, they also provide a ghost (image) backup
system to a hidden partition. This isn't a bad idea at all. Especially if
you could get without the RAID.
---------------
Jonny
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Ellen Hall
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- References:
- RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Ellen Hall
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Glen
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Ellen Hall
- RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Prev by Date: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Next by Date: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Next by thread: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|