With talk of RAID going around, I'm starting to wonder about the "old standard" of having separate drives for system, media, and projects.
I looked around a bit this morning and it seems raid is faster, but if one drive fails, all data is lost. Is this accurate? Is the extra speed really worth it if you factor that in?
A set-up consisting of an 80gig SATA system drive along with a 120gig SATA media/projects drive would be plenty fast, would it not? Also, as mentioned to me by Ted from Sony tech support, the advantage to separate drives is if my system drive becomes corrupt (do to a virus for example), is that my media/projects drive should be OK since the virus will affect the system files only. I won't have to re-install all my media if this happens.
Would the RAID speed advantage be better used by gamers?
I can't afford to lose all data if one of two drive fails. Especially if I've got customers' projects underway.
Input?
Thanks
Mario
I looked around a bit this morning and it seems raid is faster, but if one drive fails, all data is lost. Is this accurate? Is the extra speed really worth it if you factor that in?
A set-up consisting of an 80gig SATA system drive along with a 120gig SATA media/projects drive would be plenty fast, would it not? Also, as mentioned to me by Ted from Sony tech support, the advantage to separate drives is if my system drive becomes corrupt (do to a virus for example), is that my media/projects drive should be OK since the virus will affect the system files only. I won't have to re-install all my media if this happens.
Would the RAID speed advantage be better used by gamers?
I can't afford to lose all data if one of two drive fails. Especially if I've got customers' projects underway.
Input?
Thanks
Mario