In today's world, SSDs are slowly taking over the storage market when it comes to PCs & laptops. While the classic hard drives work fine, the SSDs speed is enough to push people past the space issue. We've seen combinations, like an SSD for the OS & programs, in mix with a normal HDD for files. We've also seen using an SSD as a cache.
So, if I were to but 3 500GB 7200 RPM highly rated, SATA III, and durable HHDs for about $180 -- the price of a good SSD, I would essentially be getting speed and space! This I want to do because of the enhanced lifetime of normal HDDs as apposed to SSDs. Please, throw aside the "RAID-0 is to risky" because, simply put, the facts show otherwise. 3 HHDs sharing a workload makes each individual HHD less likely to fail.
Would you do this, instead of a SSD?
No I wouldn't do this and here's why:
1) You are using more power
Just so you know your typical HD has a failure rate of about 5% chance in the first 3 years. Depending on different variables, your failure rate for a 3 disc raid 0 array is increased to about 11-13%. Somewhere in that range.
answered Feb 19 at 11:16
never ever ever EVER! use Raid 0. End Of Story!
if HD0 has a 2% chance of failure as well as HD1 and 2. you now have a 6% chance of loosing your data...
answered Feb 19 at 12:26