> >> 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
What a theory is this?! How can it increate a probility of a disk crash? Is it just because of using two disks? Is so, it is a nonsense. > 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 450MB means it can possibly fill my memory 5 times per second :-))) > 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 What data loosing are you talking about? I think hard drive failure is not a common problem (compared e.g. to strange problems of M$ Anything <enter any year here>) Or not? > -- > Dean Liversidge Aley Keprt btw. Is better 133MHz bus with ATA100 drive - or - 100MHz bus with ATA66 drive?
