Fast hard disk or RAID 0

[Michael25]

Hello all

For my personal culture (and if future for my computer) I wonder if the RAID0 a real advantage over a conventional hard drive fast.

For example, is it better to take 2-disc set 160 to 7200rpm raid 0 or a hard disk 320 fast for single pc, speaking of speed of reaction to the computer? (storage capacity will remain the same and the risk of crash will not change: whatever the case I lose my data)

Thank you all

[Zenon]

RAID should be faster, but against, as there are 2 discs, there will be 2x more likely to crash ..

[Michael25]

Ok, but the risk remains low crash is not it? SD never seen crash.

In making the report, gain speed crash risk, the best is still RAID 0 then?

[Leonard23]

My samsung just spit last week .

[Zenon]

Hard drive level is fairly reliable (in general) but there is never a safe from a blow (especially in summer).

I had a PC before (office) who died so fast that it cut into the hard drive before (I'm not care technician) rod reading / writing either store. suddenly I spend 3 or 4 DD almost 6 months (clusters that as spread).

[TX-Snakebyte]

it depends on what Zenon spoke:

for RAID 0: It increases the speed. Each file is fragmented between the 2 drives. It was indeed a significant increase in performance.
PROBLEM> you lose a disk, you lose everything. Go, Also, if you have 2 DD 160 GB

[Zenon]

The best in laptops are Seagate,

For RAID0 is 160x2 you found with 320 GB all ...

The Raid 1 or against you can not find that 160 GB and 320 GB, it uses more CPU process ... (for storage 1 on the raid was therefore agree)


A view of the proposed config, I would say that HP are those who fared best

[Michael25]

Ok

So who is right, is what the raid 0 160 gives 320 total or 160 only?
I think it is also expensive, not to buy 2 DD by DD RAID0 only 1 of 320 in 7200 rpm?

Basically, I'll put it simply, that you advise me because I want to run games well greedy