Pros / Cons of RAID 0 on the G50V-A1

First Question:
I am looking for the fastest, most stable performance of the G50V-A1. I want to do what's best for the longevity of the machine overall, so I guess heat is a factor -does Raid 0 place more or less stress on the system overall as well as the individual HDs?

Second Question:
I understand that the risk of disc failure is double with Raid 0 - but does this mean each drive is twice as likely to fail due to the stress? or does it mean that the single combined raid 0 volume is twice as likely to fail just because it is using two hd and if either hd fails the whole volume is lost?

I seem to sense a divergence in opinion on Raid 0 on this machine. I have run raid 0 in the past on my desktop machine and it was a good experience - no issues so I would like to see other people's experience with it. I appreciate everything already posted on this forum, especially ViciousXUSMC's review and raid instructions which encouraged me to buy this machine and any advice anyone can offer me on this matter!

Thank you!

Take care,
Matt

 

1. No, there is no increase in magnitude of "stress" on the HDDs by linking them in RAID0, that would actually affect product life. Both drives are still always spinning and are just splitting the data read/write. With proper care, no overclocking and normal usage the system will probably outlast its effective product lifecycle before breakdown would occur, so I wouldn't stress too much about heat issues as this is a minor factor generally.

2. The latter is correct - each drive has Y% chance of failure, and using 2 drives where a failure in either one kills the whole volume is 2 x Y%. Recognize that Y is still a very small number generally, so the overall risk is still low despite the doubling of the absolute number.

 

So it sounds like your vote is in favor of Raid0 ?

Thank you for the responses, very helpful!

 

WRT the stress, there is an increase in the stress put on the hard drives, because they will always spin and r/w data, rather than doing it alternately. However, assuming that the HDDs would never spin down anyway, there is little scientific data that points to a larger failure probability because a HDD reads/writes more. In fact I think a study by google (I remember only vaguely the details) found that HDDs that were more intensively used were no more likely to fail than those that were lightly used.

As to failure probability. Actually the statistical stuff is a bit more complicated, but roughly ClearSkies is correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_0_failure_rate

Even though the numbers are small, backing up data is important, and using RAID0 makes it even more important.

 

The computer I am typing on is a RAID array that is 5 years old, and runs 24/7. Not even a hiccup. I plan on running my G50V-A2 in RAID when it arrives.

 

raid 0 inherently is unreliable however any exprienced user should already keep an active image using ghost or acronis. so thechnically it does not matter how reliable or unreliable it is. keep a back and you can only reap the benefits of a striped array

 

I'm sorry could you elaborate more as to why it is inherently unreliable? Anything beyond what was previously mentioned? (the increased probability of volume failure)

Thank you and everyone for their responses

 

I would guess that's about it.

 

Concur.

And that's why Eddie noted the issue of keeping a current backup of the full RAID array, so if one of the drives goes south then the array can be rebuilt after the replacement drive is installed.