I'm going to buy 2 SATA 300, 16 mg buffer hard drives and put them into my
computer and take all the other ATA 100, 8 mg buffers out. Build the Vista
OS from scratch and install RAID 1 while I'm doing it. This way I should
have redundancy on the OS and data both and a faster access to my data. Does
this sound like a good plan?

You could also buy 2 copies of Microsoft C Compilers and load them on you
computer and you would then also have redundancy C. :-)

--
BobF.
"Richard" <miller6708@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JXgCj.5844$GW5.3188@newsfe12.phx...[color=blue]
> I'm going to buy 2 SATA 300, 16 mg buffer hard drives and put them into my
> computer and take all the other ATA 100, 8 mg buffers out. Build the Vista
> OS from scratch and install RAID 1 while I'm doing it. This way I should
> have redundancy on the OS and data both and a faster access to my data.
> Does this sound like a good plan?[/color]

Raid 1 is not an alternative for a backup procedure, or image procedure

"Richard" <miller6708@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JXgCj.5844$GW5.3188@newsfe12.phx...[color=blue]
> I'm going to buy 2 SATA 300, 16 mg buffer hard drives and put them into my
> computer and take all the other ATA 100, 8 mg buffers out. Build the Vista
> OS from scratch and install RAID 1 while I'm doing it. This way I should
> have redundancy on the OS and data both and a faster access to my data.
> Does this sound like a good plan?[/color]

"Richard" wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm going to buy 2 SATA 300, 16 mg buffer hard drives and put them into my
> computer and take all the other ATA 100, 8 mg buffers out. Build the Vista
> OS from scratch and install RAID 1 while I'm doing it. This way I should
> have redundancy on the OS and data both and a faster access to my data. Does
> this sound like a good plan?
>
>[/color]
No. RAID 1 will typically result in slower access to your data, depending on
your specific hardware/drivers. Will the bigger buffers overcome the RAID 1
latency... Who knows? It depends on your system and how you use it. If you
want to really speed up your system, install the OS on RAID 0 and then use
another set of drives for RAID 1 for your data. This will give you no
redundancy for the OS, but it will be smokin' fast. ;)

As the other poster pointed out, your redundancy is only from drive failure.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:23:48 -0700, "Richard" <miller6708@cox.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm going to buy 2 SATA 300, 16 mg buffer hard drives and put them into my
> computer and take all the other ATA 100, 8 mg buffers out. Build the Vista
> OS from scratch and install RAID 1 while I'm doing it. This way I should
> have redundancy on the OS and data both and a faster access to my data. Does
> this sound like a good plan?[/color]



No, not to me. If you want to upgrade your PATA drives to SATA, that's
fine. You should see better performance by doing that. But RAID1 is
hardly ever suitable for home users.

RAID 1 (mirroring) is *not* a backup solution. RAID 1 uses two or
more drives, each a duplicate of the others, to provide redundancy,
not backup. It's used in situations (almost always within
corporations, not in homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated,
because the way it works is that if one drive fails the other takes
over seamlessly. Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup
technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to
simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most
common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most
companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in
place.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup