Raid 1

crisbduck · 25 Feb 2011 at 00:21

Hey, I was thinking of getting a second f3 1tb drive and putting both of them in Raid 1 So I'd have 2 copies of all my data and read speeds should increase?
I was wondering if it was really worth it, I really only want read speed increase, so would an SSD be a much better option?
Cheers

Lethagized · 25 Feb 2011 at 08:28

You could try Raid 0+1. You get the benefit of the speed in Raid 0 and the security and reliability of Raid 1. Intel chipsets allow you to do this. It's called Matrix raid.

2 sammy F3's will give similar Transfer rates compared to some SSD's, but the seek time is around 8ms longer compared to an SSD.

rpstewart · 25 Feb 2011 at 08:53

1) RAID1 won't give you an increase in read speeds.

2) RAID0+1 is not the same as Matrix RAID. Matrix RAID allows disks to be partitioned so that a pair of physical drives can be part RAID0 and part RAID1. RAID1+0 is just one of the standard RAID levels.

crisbduck · 25 Feb 2011 at 12:32

Ah, well I have an amd cpu so can't matrix it i guess!
So is RAID1+0 the best to go for?

rpstewart · 25 Feb 2011 at 13:13

RAID1+0 requires a minimum of 4 HDDs which puts you into SSD price territory.

crisbduck · 25 Feb 2011 at 13:31

Ah well thanks very much, think I'll just got for RAID 0 and back up to my external

Lethagized · 25 Feb 2011 at 17:55

You have an AMD cpu, but what chipset do you have?
The matrix Raid 0+1 only uses 2 drives.

crisbduck · 25 Feb 2011 at 18:05

Its an ASUS M4A88T AMD 880G motherboard so 880g is the chipset if i remember how it works?

DIABLO · 25 Feb 2011 at 21:06

Technically RAID 1 doe's allow for a read speed increase, but i've never seen this on motherboard based RAID at least.

rpstewart · 25 Feb 2011 at 21:59

RobRX-7 said:
The matrix Raid 0+1 only uses 2 drives.

Matrix RAID can create 2 arrays on the same pair of drives, one RAID0 and one RAID1. That isn't RAID0+1 though, RAID0+1 is a single array across a minimum of 4 disks formed of a pair of mirrored RAID0 arrays.