> Is RAID0 more prone to crashes than a single disk?

yes, because you have 2 disks, and if only one crash you lost all your data ! but in 15 year of computer enginering i never see any disk crashed (just encoutered bad sector but never disk that fully crash) !

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Kjell Rilbe <kjell.rilbe@...> wrote:
>
> Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
> > > For a Database of 20 GB, regarding the speed, is it better to use RAID
> > > 0 or not ? I read that read 0 is twice more faster BUT is it true when
> > > we speak about only one file (the .GDB) ?
> >
> > RAID 0 is a little faster than RAID 1 when it comes to read performance.
> >
> > However, but the reliability/resiliency which RAID 1 provides makes it
> > "illogical" (read: DO NOT DO IT!!!!) to use RAID 0 for any production
> > purposes.
>
> I wonder, am I missing something? In general you don't hesitate to put
> single-disk systems in production environments. Is RAID0 more prone to
> crashes than a single disk? Obviously, the expected MTBF for a set of
> two disks is shorter than just one of them, but is it really *that* much
> shorter? In other words, if I feel quite at ease with a single disk,
> should I really worry a lot about a 2-disk RAID0 system?
>
> Kjell
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Kjell Rilbe
> DataDIA AB
> E-post: kjell@...
> Telefon: 08-761 06 55
> Mobil: 0733-44 24 64
>