I needs suggestions...

[Coke Robot]

Oh goodness, I'm really starting to puss out from using RAID 0 because I realized after formatting, I simply cannot risk losing 3.6 TERABYTES, of data with very low chances of recovery.

I hit up newegg today and looked for some SATA III solid state drives and there are some that have about over a dollar-per-gigabyte price ratio. Oy.

So now, I'm thinking I could budget out some more dollars for a SSD since the hard drives I'm planning to get are now at 130ish dollars. But, I do need and want that uber amount of storage while hybriding a SSD. The thing is though that I don't want to be changing file directories to different drives every time the hard drives run low on space.

I'm wondering if the two hard drives can be combined in Windows into one recognized drive, so the SSD is the C drive and the uber storage is the D drive, or U for Uber storage. I've heard that in Xp, two hard drives can be converted into dynamic disks and then they can be combine. And, if some USB flash drives are in use, they can be converted as well. OR, can all of the drives be converted into dynamic drives and made into the C drive? Or am I pushing my luck?

Is this a good plan? Thanksgiving!

 

[speedgamer01]

Yes, it is considered as a safe method nowadays to create a RAID 0 array.

edit: please download your motherboard's raid utility called: AMD RAIDXpert V3.2.1540.10 for Windows
http://uk.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3/M4A78LTM_LE/#download

I suggest you to follow this tutorial!!!
http://www.qtools.com/dev/howtos/raidxpert/migratetoraid1.htm
When you are asked, answer with RAID0 not RAID1!



(second solution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch_RDNSX5V8https://www.youtube.com/watch?vch_RDNSX5V8)

 

[Coke Robot]

I was thinking that doing a RAID for the two hard drives might prove to be better since it could speed up archival file searching and help out with virtual machines. But the issue comes up again, that's WAY too much data to risk.

I was looking into dynamic drives and spanning volumes, that might work.

 

[pparks1]

A RAID 0 is often NOT the way to go. And if you do go RAID 0 for performance, be absolutely sure that you
1). Backup
2). Backup often

I would also not really suggest spanning volumes within Windows simply to have 1 drive letter. Instead, keep your drives separate. This way, if anything were to happen to your machine, you could take 1 drive out, put it in another machine and be guaranteed to see all of your files. With a spanned volume setup, it may just not be that simple to plug in a remaining drive if another drive dies in the setup.

I mean, if you have 3.6TB of data, that's basically 2 x 2TB storage drives. So you have a D drive for 1 thing and an E drive for something else. That doesn't seem like too much to manage.

 

[Coke Robot]

True, but after a while, I'd have to link up my libraries with two drives. Once I run out of space on one drive, I'd need to start putting them on the other drive. The same goes with music, etc...

I kind of like simplicity, which is why I'm running 7 and not vista.

 

[pparks1]

True, but after a while, I'd have to link up my libraries with two drives. Once I run out of space on one drive, I'd need to start putting them on the other drive. The same goes with music, etc...

I kind of like simplicity, which is why I'm running 7 and not vista.

There is always the option to...wait for it....wait for it...."store less" crap. Most things you could simply download again from the web anyway. I've never really understood how home users can fill up terabytes upon terabytes of stuff.

 

[Beta]

Buy the SSD drive and then use Raid 1 for the two other drives. This will alow for a solid back up of your data.

 

[pparks1]

Buy the SSD drive and then use Raid 1 for the two other drives. This will alow for a solid back up of your data.

RAID1 is NOT a backup. If you get a virus and it deletes files, it deletes it from both..instantly. If you accidentally lose your mind and delete your files, it deletes from both instantly.

The term RAID and backup should only be used together by saying that with RAID you need to ensure you have a backup of your data. RAID provides redundancy, not a backup.

 

[Coke Robot]

True, but after a while, I'd have to link up my libraries with two drives. Once I run out of space on one drive, I'd need to start putting them on the other drive. The same goes with music, etc...

I kind of like simplicity, which is why I'm running 7 and not vista.

There is always the option to...wait for it....wait for it...."store less" crap. Most things you could simply download again from the web anyway. I've never really understood how home users can fill up terabytes upon terabytes of stuff.

Being a digital whore?

 

[pparks1]

I understand, but what is it that you are keeping? Do you have like every version of Firefox ever released? Do you have every movie you have ever seen stored on your computer? I'm just trying to understand how somebody amasses this much stuff and what they will ever do with it all.

 

[UKMedia]

Well if you rip a BD disk, there goes 50GB.... After that, it all goes down hill and you need shares in a hardware manufacture - I'm up to 24 TB now

BTW - I prefer Raid5 for drive failure resilience.

Regards
UKMedia

 

[Coke Robot]

I understand, but what is it that you are keeping? Do you have like every version of Firefox ever released? Do you have every movie you have ever seen stored on your computer? I'm just trying to understand how somebody amasses this much stuff and what they will ever do with it all.

HA! Firefox...

Basically yeah, I have a bunch of blu-ray movies that I keep and sometimes author DVDs. Then there's virtual machines, a 32bit 7 and a couple of testers.

Not only that, I also use that space as temporary backups for other people's hard drives when I do a full reformat on them so I can install 7 on those drive, then move their files back. And also, I figure that having that much space may actually last me this entire decade considering that they drives don't die...

 

[Coke Robot]

Well if you rip a BD disk, there goes 50GB.... After that, it all goes down hill and you need shares in a hardware manufacture - I'm up to 24 TB now

BTW - I prefer Raid5 for drive failure resilience.

Regards
UKMedia

Oh my!

 

[Wishmaster]

I too am in the camp that, RAID is not worth it.


Personally, I think a SSD for the OS and all programs is the best way to go.
Then store all other DATA on 1 or more mechanical drives.

I rip alot of DVD of Blurays myself, and have a pretty decent collection. But, Im more of a gamer and have a HUGE game library.

So in my case I have 2 mechanical HDs, and since Gaming is most important to me, 1 HD is dedicated to Games only.
The other is used for my media. (Music, Pictures and Videos)


Obviously you can set it up however you want.
But if you are really big into Video encoding etc, perhaps having a mechanical HD dedicated your movies is a good idea.
Maybe even a second smaller HD to be used as a scratch disc. Say a 300-500GB one, For ripping discs to and prepping for encode. Once encoded, move the file to its permanent home.

Everyones needs are different, so just some ideas to consider.


But, I would certainly just go with single HDs.
Why?
1) The main reason is its more reliable than a RAID
2) They are being used for DATA storage. Speed will not really matter here anyway.
Besides, the drive is always idle untill you need it, since the OS isn't running off it.
Speed matters the most for the OS and apps. If thats all on a SSD, youll be in great shape.