Worth the investment, that is.

I know the basis of RAID, but I'm not exactly familiar with the inner workings or the more exotic setups (not that I'd have to use those).

So, with RAID 0 I'd be using 2 disks and divide all data over both, giving me a speed advantage but also an increase in risk. What I was wondering about is how much this speed advantage would be...would it be significant enough to "risk"using this setup? And the price.

RAID 1 seems pretty redundant for someone like me I suppose. I mean I definitely am fucking afraid of HD crashes; but I make regular backups on DVD and don't store any life-changing data.

RAID 0+1 is a wet dream but I'd need (at least) 4 HD's right?

So...who's willing to shed any light on this? If he/she can. As a gamer I'm primarily looking for a speed gain, but only if it outweighs the risk/cost. Oh and I'd be using identical 7200 RPM SATA disks.

RAID - 1 is mirroring. Protects against disk failure. Just back the crap up to DVD... it's cheaper and more effective. RAID 1 is like for servers and shit that would take too long to restore.

RAID - 0 is striping. Striping is for the speed boost. And, honestly, you probably wouldn't notice hte improvement. Plus you lose 50% of your disk capacity. Requires at least 2 disks.

RAID 0+1 is mirroring and striping. Don't use it....I don't remember if it's 3 or 4 disk minimum, but there are better options for the money.

RAID 5 - Yea baby. Better than RAID 0+1. 4 disks I believe, and you get RAID 0+1 with better performance.

Overall, I think you'd be better off investing in other things. RAID just isn't really cost effective.

check out wikipedia for a really nice look at RAID

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

includes all kinds of RAIDs I'd never heard of