On 12:26 Wed 30 Mar , A. Khattri wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Bill Roberts wrote: > > > The only thing they have missed, IMHO, are Western Digital's SATA > > drives. I have two of their 10,000 rpm Raptors running on a RAID0, my > > machine screams. These are Western Digital's effort to break into the > > commercial, i.e., scsi, market, and are, by all reports, rugged and > > reliable. > > Hmmm... doesn't RAID 0 stripe across the disks? If so, then doesn't that > mean if one drive fails the whole RAID array is hosed? > > So maybe you're using this purely performance reasons? > Exactly.
It took me a while to figure out that what I need is speed, not redundancy. I am not running websites that require five nines (99.999%) of uptime. I do need to protect my data, which I do by backups, but on a day to day basis, what I want is speed. Compiling is not only cpu intensive, but involves a great deal of read/write. Show me any other way you can easily get the following numbers from hdparm: /dev/md0: Timing cached reads: 2868 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1432.78 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 410 MB in 3.01 seconds = 136.05 MB/sec Bill Roberts
pgpa9odot49Pq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
