>Hi Alex,
>
>Yes, I've discovered that (4 drives needed).
>But I'd still like to learn if C: can be RAID 1 with 2 SATA drives AND D: and DVD, etc as discreet other drives.
>
>Thanks
It seems to me that in that case, RAID 5 is a better option. However, I don't know about the hardware requirements (special controllers, etc.).
In RAID 1, an exact copy of a hard disk is made. Therefore, only half the capacity is used.
In RAID 5, you need a minimum of 3 identical hard disks. If any one of the three fails, the data can be reconstructed of the other two. Imagine that one of the hard disks is for redundancy (in actual fact, hard disks switch roles for different sectors of data). This means that 2 of the 3 hard disks are used for data (or 3 out of 4, etc.), and one is "wasted" as redundancy.
Also, assuming you use 4 hard disks, the data is striped along 3 of the disks, giving you even faster access than with RAID 0.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
