To raid or not to raid ?

Dicehunter · 4 Aug 2007 at 16:13

Ive heard a lot of raid 0 but how much faster is it really, im on a raptor x at the moment, how much of a performance boost will i recieve from raid 0 ?

silversurfer · 4 Aug 2007 at 20:56

Dont think I'd bother with a raptor. See the benchmark thread for what people achieve

clocka · 6 Aug 2007 at 11:51

wouldnt raid 2 of those 150gb raptors, very expensive, for the extra £150 you would need for another 150gb raptor you could get 2 * 500gb wd 500aks in raid0 and have 1tb of storage!

silversurfer · 6 Aug 2007 at 12:03

NOt everyone needs 1tb though and risking 500gigs of data on 1 drive seems iffy

MumboJumbo · 6 Aug 2007 at 12:34

I cant understand how so many people have such huge hard drives. Ive never used over 200gb i dont think. How much porn do you guys need!!!

clocka · 6 Aug 2007 at 12:43

he doesnt have to fill the 1tb though. hopefully samsung will release a 333gb hdd with 1 platter soon, that would fly! but for now 500gb's are pretty much the fastest for decent price/size.

rpstewart · 6 Aug 2007 at 13:06

8igdave said:
I cant understand how so many people have such huge hard drives. Ive never used over 200gb i dont think.

Filling HDDs isn't difficult, I can generate 200Gb of RAW and processed photos from two or three major events.

silversurfer · 6 Aug 2007 at 13:19

Dont suppose windows ntfs compression helps with that

rpstewart · 6 Aug 2007 at 13:44

It would do for the TIFF versions but the RAWs are already compressed. I'm not using compression though, plenty of space left on the array still and if I need any more room there's a fair chunk of stuff which can get housekept.

silversurfer · 6 Aug 2007 at 20:15

I always use compression because on most of my setups the cpu is far better then the hdd, could be quicker to load I think

Barry1337 · 6 Aug 2007 at 20:22

I could full the hard drive but i just simply dont have the net speed to do that or attent lans.