>> Disk: >> I think I will go for the Raptor disk, but Ernst where you talking >> about running system disk in Raid? ( I have never tried it but heard >> that it?s not good to run Raid on a system disk) > >Depends on what Raid you will be using >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks) :) > >RAID 0 is striping. This is when you write different data on both disks >at the same time. So in theory you can get twice the speed. Real life is >ofc different but there is alot of speed to be gained (read some >tomshardware articles about it). Problem is, and this is why ppl say not >to do it on system disks, that if 1 of the disks fail you loose all >data. With 2 disks you double your risk of disk failure. You get to use >the accumulated disk space of both disks. So twice the storage as 1 >disk. That is an issue ofc, but on all my home computers in 20 years I've never had a HD failure. Call me lucky :D >RAID 1 is mirroring. When data is written to 1 disk, the same data is >written to disk number 2. No speedgain, but no speeddrop either. When 1 >disk fails you still have the data and can keep running 100% speed. Then >you replace broken disk and the raid builds itself so you have 2 disks >and are ready for a new failure. You only have the storage of the size >of 1 disk. > >Other RAIDs are for different uses. >If you have 4 disks or more (even number) you can build RAID 1+0 :) >Thats disks mirrored and striped. So double speed, double redundancy. >But you only have double diskcapasity. >Gotta love it when you have 8x15k SCSI/SAS disks in RAID 1+0 :) Well...if you're gonna use more than 2 disks I'd definitely have a look at raid5 - even if I had to buy a secondary raid controller. You'll prob get one at about 1500,- (or maybe a little more - do some research) that is quite ok :) But 3+ disks and a controller will had some NOK to it :S Fidelis