Originally Posted by r4kdotnet
raid 0 vs. single drive
is the down side the same for both??
In one way it is, in another it is not. They are the same in that if the drive fails you lose the data you had on the drive.
RAID 0 doesn't do anything in and of itself to cause drives to fail faster. What it does do is increase your chances of having a failure because it is more complex. In a single drive set up you could have a failure in either the drive or the controller. In a RAID 0 set up, the array could fail because disk 1 fails, disk 2 fails, or the controller fails. The more parts involved, the greater the chance of failure.
One note about RAID 1: It needs to be pointed out here to those that don't know that RAID 1 only protects from hardware failures. Data on a RAID 1 is still just as vulnerable to accidental deletions, virus infection, corruption due to software, etc... as those problems would affect all drives simultaneously.
When working with computers, people need to accept that data loss is inevitable without a good regimen of backup. It doesn't matter whether you're running a single drive config, RAID 0, RAID 1, or even more sophisticated configs like RAID 5 and RAID 0+1, if you don't backup your data to other storage media like CD or DVD, you'll eventually lose it. If its important, back it up.
For me, the risks of RAID 0 are worth the performance increases (I can vouch for those when installing large applications and when encoding video) and even just my technology enthusiast side just to say that I'm running a RAID 0 array.
And really, you if you order RAID 0 and later get uncomfortable with it, you can set it up to run as 2 single drives or even RAID 1. Plus most (if not all) of the cost of putting it on your notebook that make it more than a single drive is just the cost of the extra HDD itself.