Maximum PC

I'm thinking of saving my data on 2 hard drives in RAID 0. For backup, I'll set up another 2 hard drives using RAID 0 again. I haven't bought the motherboard yet, but I'll get a standard one that comes with 6 SATA ports and a single Intel RAID controller. Something like this: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_ ... 8H77M_PRO/

Is that possible? Or must I get a motherboard with 2 RAID controllers?

It says it supports RAID 10, which RAID 1+0, which is what you want to do.

I can't afford 4 hard drives now. Have to buy 2 first, then another 2 probably next year. That's why I need to do 2 RAID 0.

Yes, you can do that. You would add the two drives later, enter the RAID 'BIOS', and set the two drives to striped. They would then appear as one new drive to the OS.

Out of curiosity though, why RAID 0? Do you truly need the speed? If you do set your current drives in RAID 0 I would make sure you have a good backup agent and another drive to store backups!

n0b0dykn0ws

Adding to that, RAID 0 does offer 2x write and read, but at 50% reliability. If you don't need the write speed, unless you're doing major edits to massive (>1GB) files all the time). You can do RAID1 and still get the 2x read speed.

Why RAID 0?

Because RAID 1 is mirror and RAID 0 joins 2 or more harddrives together.
I have about 3TB of data, and a single 3TB is not worth it. (The sweet spot is now at 2TB, right?)
So, I am getting two 2TB hard-drives and plan to join them in RAID 0.
Unless you know another way to join 2 hard drives together?

Yeah, disk spanning.

At least with this, if one drive fails, you don't lose everything. If RAID0 fails, you lose everything (unless there's some miraculous way to conjure up 50% of your data from thin air).

Is it true that, if you use disk spanning, and your motherboard dies or if you plug the drives into another computer, you can't access the disks?

Because RAID is pretty flexible that way. You can plug your drives into another motherboard (as long as it has the same controller) with no problem at all.

Oh wait, nevermind. Side research says you lose your data on a spanned volume if one drive goes kaput. And a motherboard is less likely to fail than a hard drive.

So in other words, keep the volumes separate. With the sizes you have, there's no real reason why you should combine them.

I want to join them together, because it's easier to organize the data. I don't want folders being split into sub-folders across different drives. I read that you can join drives without RAID by "mounting" the drives using Disk Management. But then again, these drives won't run jointly on another computer.

Oh, I don't expect my motherboard to fail that soon, but I might just change the motherboard when it's time to upgrade (like when Haswell or Broadwell arrives which is only 1-2 years away).

Well, all your options have decreased reliability (by a factor of how many drives you have). That's all I'm going to say. Whatever you do with your data is all on you.

I understand the reliability risks. I'm going to backup sometime (not the smartest, but I can only afford 2 drives now).

Why isn't a 3 TB drive worth it?

A 2 TB 7200 RPM drive is $120 on Newegg.
A 3 TB 7200 RPM drive is $170 on Newegg.

The 3 TB drive is slightly lower on the $/GB scale.

Now if you think you'll need more than 3 TBs, then the 4 TB drives are not worth it.

n0b0dykn0ws

Ok, there's something weird here. Last I checked (1-2 months ago) the cheapest price per GB goes to Seagate Green 5900RPM 64MB 2TB hard drives.

Now, it seems like the Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 64MB 2TB drives is even cheaper than the 5900RPM ones?!

Cheapest Newegg price now:
2TB $110
3TB $165

Since they are both equal in $/GB, now I am not sure whether I need 3TB or 2x2TB.

If you are worried about your files, and don't want to separate them to two drives, go with the 3 TB drive.

n0b0dykn0ws

He's more worried about organization. Of all things.

3TB of data... holy cow. I've been shooting digital photography for the last 10 years including RAW, & 1080i / 720p video for the last 6 & with triple backups I have less than 3TB of data. I have all of my originals on a single 1TB HD with 28% free space & that includes over 150GB of Audio files, & another 30GB of saved documents. Guess I need to take more photos

If I had 3TB of data, there's no way I'd put it on any RAID(other than RAID-1), not even with a backup of the RAID array. Personally, I find it much easier to organize using 2 separate data drives. Windows programs & games are installed on a pair of 120GB SSD's in RAID-0. I then have 2 1TB drives setup. On the newer/faster SATA III 1TB drive, I have 100% of my video files. On the older/slower SATA II 1TB drive, I have all of my documents, my music, my photos, & my downloads, but at the rate this one is filling up, I may move the downloads over to the Video drive since I can't afford 2TB drives right now...

Unless you're lumping everything into a single folder (which would be highly un-organized), there's no logical difference between running the drives individually & putting your files in their appropriate folders Vs spanning or RAID your drives together & putting your files in their appropriate folders... except that you run the risk of loosing everything if your RAID fails.

With 3TB (& growing) of data, I have 3 words for you... Network Attached Storage. I suggest something in the 2 to 4-bay / $200 to $300 range like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822148615 This gives you the flexibility of external backups & unlimited expansion, as well as a centralized backup point if you have more than one computer.