John brought it up near the start of the thread. Speed was the only reason we used RAID at the shop I was at, anyone who uses it for backup is an idiot. We needed increased uptime...being down even 15 minutes could cost thousands, and we needed speed so that over 300 users could access the data simultaneously.
I had a RAID zero at one time because I could. Hobbyist is why we or they do it, I just wanted to have a little fun, I tried it for awhile and then went back to single drive OS. The biggest difference I saw was install time, it was cut in half, otherwise it wasn't that big an issue. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't speak for Tom, but I don't believe he ever actually said this. > Even he will admit that the only way to get extra speed from a drive > is RAID. His objections, like mine, have more to do with fault > tolerance and backups. With the new RAID configs, the problem is being > addressed. Then again there's the whole topic of whether a home user > should consider RAID. If I see one more hobbyist build a RAID so that > Word starts quicker or to get a few more FPS from a game I think I'll > scream. > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:24 AM, mike <[email protected]> wrote: > > I still await the data that a single drive performs better than RAID when > > multiple users are reading/writing. And by multiple I mean more than > > several hundred. > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
