Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="joz" data-source="post: 416729" data-attributes="member: 70244">About RAID:RAID5&nbsp;&nbsp; = Highest CPU usage, slower writes, faster reads (comparable to RAID-1). 2/3 of capacity available. If 1/3 of the drives fail you can still get data back. minimum of 3 drivesRAID10 = Benefits of both worlds. RAID-0 for performance and RAID-1 for safety. Only 1/2 of the capacity is available though. If 1/2 of the drives fail you can still get data back. minimum of 4 drivesRAID1&nbsp;&nbsp; = Safety first. Read/writes are comparable to that of a single drive although reads might be a little quicker. 1/2 of capacity available. If 1/2 of the drives fail you can still get data back. minimum of 2 drivesRAID0&nbsp;&nbsp; = Performance first, safety last.&nbsp; 1 drive failing means losing all the data. full capacity available.minimum of 2 drivesSo I say RAID-1 is the best solution, Like I said before. Since money does not seem to be a real dealbreaker here. RAID-1 is just the best bet for safety which is the concern here. You do not need to think about RAID 10 I think because internet performance will outweigh HD performance.If you're going for RAID-1 then I'm not as sure that you'd really need the RAID card. Because RAID-1 is just writing the same data twice instead of once, doesn't take any extra processing power or caching for that mather. Although write cache is always nice to have, will make HDs faster.p.s.I think you're basing too much on your own personal experiences. I would read more reviews and stuff if I were you, why I think this way;You discard onboard GPU because you had bad experiences,You discard onboard RAID/SATA controllers for the same dealI do not have those experiences myself with the 2 above and I've been building/installing quite a lot of PCs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="joz, post: 416729, member: 70244"] About RAID: [B]RAID5 [/B]= Highest CPU usage, slower writes, faster reads (comparable to RAID-1). 2/3 of capacity available. If 1/3 of the drives fail you can still get data back. minimum of 3 drives [B]RAID10 [/B]= Benefits of both worlds. RAID-0 for performance and RAID-1 for safety. Only 1/2 of the capacity is available though. If 1/2 of the drives fail you can still get data back. minimum of 4 drives [B]RAID1 [/B]= Safety first. Read/writes are comparable to that of a single drive although reads might be a little quicker. 1/2 of capacity available. If 1/2 of the drives fail you can still get data back. minimum of 2 drives [B]RAID0 [/B]= Performance first, safety last. 1 drive failing means losing all the data. full capacity available.minimum of 2 drives So I say RAID-1 is the best solution, Like I said before. Since money does not seem to be a real dealbreaker here. RAID-1 is just the best bet for safety which is the concern here. You do not need to think about RAID 10 I think because internet performance will outweigh HD performance. If you're going for RAID-1 then I'm not as sure that you'd really need the RAID card. Because RAID-1 is just writing the same data twice instead of once, doesn't take any extra processing power or caching for that mather. Although write cache is always nice to have, will make HDs faster. p.s. I think you're basing too much on your own personal experiences. I would read more reviews and stuff if I were you, why I think this way; You discard onboard GPU because you had bad experiences, You discard onboard RAID/SATA controllers for the same deal I do not have those experiences myself with the 2 above and I've been building/installing quite a lot of PCs. [/QUOTE]

Verification