Serial ATA Raid

Ive recently purchased 2 x 120gb Maxtor Serial ATA HDD's. In my machine i currently have 1 x 40gb Maxtor and 1 x 80Gb IBM. Both of these are IDE drives.
Im giving the 40gb HDD to a mate of mine and im not sure whether or not to keep the 80gb IBM?! I dont really need the space but i was thinking of keeping it as my main drive (windows etc) and running the 2 x 120gb Serial hdd's in Raid and keep all my files/backup on there.
Please can people give their opinions on how i should set this up?! How would you set this up? Im undecided at the moment.
Thanks
Kev - Boyo

:( Not what you want to hear (and not very helpful I'm afraid) but I wouldn't bother with RAID. The perf boost is much smaller than most seem to think, 10-15% (even with a good stripe size) and then you have the added hassles when it comes time to upgrade your HDs or mobo as well as more than double the chance of total failure. I take it it's the perf orientated striping you're after as opposed to the real time backup of mirroring? IIRC the biggest gains of RAID come when Windows loads up so for that reason I guess it would make most sense to have your OS installed on the RAID. You could always use the 80GB to keep a backup of your most important data just in case things mess up ... also handy to install the/an OS to it too as that can help if you have problems with your main HD(s).

If it were me, I'd set the 2 x 120Gb in a RAID 0 config and load OS on those.

Perhaps then partition a section of the RAID array off for storage of mp3's, pix, documents etc.

You could then use the 80Gb drive for backup using a software prog such as Drive Image. Although if your 240Gb RAID drive exceeds 80Gb, you won't be able to do that, of course.

Just playing around with ideas.

As for RAID, I've found my setups easily outperform single HDD setups. Both of those are IDE HDD setups. I must admit, with new technology, better hard drives and all, the difference between RAID and single HDD's is becoming less noticeable, unless maybe, you go for a pair of WD Raptors.

This old chestnut of RAID drives being more prone to failure comes up yet again. If a single HDD fails, you've lost your OS. If a single RAID HDD fails, you've lost your OS. I suppose that relying on two drives, rather than one, you have twice as much chance of failure.

I've often thought long and hard about this, and have actually had one IBM drive in a RAID setup fail. Does running a RAID 0 setup have more risk of failure? I really can't make my mind up about this one.

Answers, please, on the back of a postage stamp to the usual address :D

:) Whether you take 2 single or one single HD versus a striped RAID the chances of losing everything is higher. If you lose either HD in RAID the whole lots lost and almost certainly irretreivable. You're also more dependent on the RAID controller and as said playing about with things is more dangerous, even upgrades. I believe RAID also stresses the HDs a little more, simply by the very nature of striping. Although in all cases with good HDs and care the chances should be very tiny in the first place. If you do RAID I'd suggest doing it more for the experience than anything else. BTW I've never personally used RAID so may not be best placed to offer much more than theory and hear-say, ah well.

i wouldnt other with raid either.

with raid you get a small performance increase where it doesnt really matter anyway BUT:

2x the cable mess
one less hdd bay
2x the niose from your hdds
2x the heat from hdds
2x the chance of hdd failure

ive got a 160gb a 120gb and a 40gb all maxtors, the 160gb is newest and its still almost empty, think i might get rid of the 40 soon beause its niosyest