Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind
Mike being new to RAID I'm not quite understanding when you say "corresponds to the smallest disk " do you is limited to the smallest disk size ?
I thought the reason for RAID was to have Aggregate of all the drives ?
And no, not performance and not data corruption, the reason is for file storage , specifically Final Cut Pro X video files. My iMac works fine performance wise for my audio recording mixing and video recording and editing ...
But even though it is 2 TB iMac it was close to running out of storage, before I purged the FCPX folder. And most of my recordings are now for music audio/video productions
|
If you just want more disk space, I'd skip RAID. Just add more disks. What raid gives you is the ability to either write different data in parallel to multiple disks (for speed), or to write the same data multiple times (for automatic backup). Or if you have enough disks you can get both.
With RAID 0, where you're splitting the data across disks, you do get the benefit of treating multiple drives as a single larger drive, but that comes with a cost - if any single drive fails, all your data will be lost. If you skipped RAID and just had two 1TB drives, for example, and one failed, you'd still have the projects stored on the other disk. With RAID, if one fails, you have lost everything.
If you're not using RAID for performance or redundancy (basically an automatic backup), there's little reason to use it.