Originally posted by: Wag
What kind of raid array do people generally run? And what are the advantages/disadvantages to each? (My mobo supports it).
RAID 0:
Requires a minimum of 2 drives. Data is split between the two drives. Your capacity is the combined total of the two drives. This is also a higher performance configuration. However, if one drive fails, you lose all your data.
RAID 1:
Requires a minimum of 2 drives. Data is written to both drives at the same time. Your capacity is that of only one of the drives. If you lose a drive, you still have a copy on the other drive. However, don't consider this a replacement for backups. If your RAID controller starts spewing crap or you otherwise overwrite a file, it is gone.
RAID 0+1:
Requires a minimum of 4 drives. This is a combination of RAID levels 1 and 0. Your capacity is the combined total of two of the drives. You have two RAID 0s which are mirrors of each other. The advantage of this is you get the performance of RAID 0 with the redundancy of RAID 1. However, it requires 4 drives which can be costly.
RAID 5:
Requires a minimum of 3 drives. Your capacity is n-p where "n" is your total number of drives and "p" is the number of parity drives. If you have 3 drives and 1 is a parity drive, your capacity is the combined total of 2. If you have 5 drives and 2 of them are parity, your capacity is the total of 3. The more parity drives you have, the more drive failures you can sustain before losing data. Not all RAID controllers support this. It also can be a burden on your CPU if you are using a software RAID 5 due to the computation of the parity bit. Additionally, there are grumblings of people having issues restoring a lost drive in a RAID 5.
All of the above assume drive sizes are the same. Also, just to reiterate, RAID is not a replacement for good backups.
Hope that helps...