On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:19:18 +0100 (MET), you wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:30:38 +0100 "Aley Keprt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Is RAID 0 really two times faster? > >Depends, but there is usually always a certain amount of "loss in >multiplicator" >effect, but for all practical purposes it's twice as fast if you substitute >one disk for two using RAID0. Provided, of course that there is enough >bandwith on the bus and the CPU/RAM can keep up. > >However, there is no redundancy in a RAID0 set, hence it's more commonly >referred to as striping. Actually, introducing RAID0 increases the >probability of a disk crash (and hence data loss without propper >backup) by the increase in disks. > > -Frode
Well, i wouldnt say twice as fast, a lot of it depends on the applications your running, but its definatly an improvement, especially since there both ATA100 spec :) on one benchmark it was doing about 450MB/sec sequential read, but i never take too much notice of benchmarks Yeah, thats true, but for my home system, i'm not too concened about redundency, although this m/board can do raid0+1, but i backup a few of the things i want to keep, erm... sometimes <g> its not worth the cost of loosing the extra disks, most stuff i can re-install it feels good ahinve it tho ;o), win2k boots nice and quick, and ive got loads of space to put my sam images -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
