«

I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a motherboard
based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority, multitasking and
video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that boots up fast. I
need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to consider whether I want
to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard raid and I already have a
sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know from anyone with personal
experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2 hdd's will make a big speed
difference to windowsxp startup time and the other priorities I have already
mentioned. My research on the net has not been very helpful for getting a
clear answer to what I want to know, in fact it has been rather confusing.
So what can I expect in the real world?

In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:

> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
> other priorities I have already mentioned.

Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
crash.

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
news:f9u96d$i02$...
> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
>
>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
>
> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
> crash.

Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
using other raid configurations.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:29:02 +1200, blanking wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f9u96d$i02$...
>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
>>
>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
>>
>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
>> crash.
>
> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
> had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
> isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
> take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
> using other raid configurations.

I have. Plenty. There's an 80GB SATA here on my desk as I speak. These raid
offerings aren't real raid either - it's all done in software. If you want
proper raid, then get a proper card with onboard cache and a battery
backup. Don't forget extra, dedicated cooling for the two drives as well.

Raid 1 offers the same write performance ( well, near as dammit ), but
much improved read performance, as it's got 2 targets to get the info from.

What sort of performance are you after? I get about 35MB/sec continuous
from my disks and they're nothing special.

Steve

"Steve" <> wrote in message
news:f9uc3g$6t8$...
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:29:02 +1200, blanking wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:f9u96d$i02$...
>>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
>>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and
>>>> the
>>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
>>>
>>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
>>> crash.
>>
>> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have
>> never
>> had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
>> isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
>> take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
>> using other raid configurations.
>
> I have. Plenty. There's an 80GB SATA here on my desk as I speak. These
> raid
> offerings aren't real raid either - it's all done in software. If you want
> proper raid, then get a proper card with onboard cache and a battery
> backup. Don't forget extra, dedicated cooling for the two drives as well.
>
> Raid 1 offers the same write performance ( well, near as dammit ), but
> much improved read performance, as it's got 2 targets to get the info
> from.
>
> What sort of performance are you after? I get about 35MB/sec continuous
> from my disks and they're nothing special.
>
> Steve

Well if I need to add extra cooling to run 2 hdd's as raid rather than just
the normal then that's a deal breaker, is a 2nd hdd going add much heat if
it's not running raid?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:29:02 +1200, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:

>
>"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
>news:f9u96d$i02$...
>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
>>
>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
>>
>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
>> crash.
>
>Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
>had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
>isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
>take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
>using other raid configurations.
>
It must be your turn, then. I've lost two. Hard drive failures are
not uncommon.

In message <>, blanking wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f9u96d$i02$...
>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
>>
>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
>>
>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
>> crash.
>
> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
> had one fail...

Don't be bloody silly.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:46:45 +1200, blanking wrote:

> Well if I need to add extra cooling to run 2 hdd's as raid rather than just
> the normal then that's a deal breaker, is a 2nd hdd going add much heat if
> it's not running raid?

No. You need extra cooling to be sure the disks don't get hot, regardless
of whether they run raid or not. They have moving parts ( which is why
they wear out! ), and consume power, so they generate heat. They hotter
they get, they shorter their lifespan.

On Aug 15, 7:11 pm, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:
> I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a motherboard
> based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority, multitasking and
> video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that boots up fast. I
> need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to consider whether I want
> to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard raid and I already have a
> sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know from anyone with personal
> experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2 hdd's will make a big speed
> difference to windowsxp startup time and the other priorities I have already
> mentioned. My research on the net has not been very helpful for getting a
> clear answer to what I want to know, in fact it has been rather confusing.
> So what can I expect in the real world?

I have raid 0 via 2x 250GB SATA drives. I would never again purchase a
system without it. For sustained read and writes its ALOT quicker.
Especially if you want to do other things while your doing disk based
activites, ie copy files and also browse the internet, or play a game.
I'd dismiss the old fundies as they decree "you'll loose the lot!!!!",
so what, you'll loose the lot with a single drive based system as
well.

Go for it, you wont go back.

Hank.

blanking wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f9u96d$i02$...
>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
>>
>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
>> crash.
>
> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
> had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
> isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
> take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
> using other raid configurations.
>
>

raid 5 reads as fast as raid 0, so if boot up is important then a raid 5
is the way I would go....however, to be honest I do not believe you are
going to see a difference worth paying for....

regards

Thing