would a third raid 0 HDD be worth it?

413x · 27 Feb 2011 at 16:17

i have a raid 0 WD VR setup atm and its noticeably quicker than just one, not double but quicker.

would a third be worth getting?

i dont care about failure risk its not important, just performance

thanks

Surveyor · 27 Feb 2011 at 17:12

Well, in theory, the more you have the faster it will be.

jbloggs · 27 Feb 2011 at 21:01

would a third be worth getting?

In reality I would reckon you wouldn't notice any difference going from a 2 x HDD RAID0 setup to a 3 x HDD array...

413x · 27 Feb 2011 at 21:25

That was what I was thinking, was just cause I saw one in the mm on here but was only considering it, but if it's not worth it ill give it a miss

Zarf · 27 Feb 2011 at 21:45

If storage subsystem speed is an important issue to you dump those spinners already and get an SSD or two.
If for some reason you need hundreds of GB of super fast storage why not look into using Fancycache with your existing setup, and use one of the upcoming 500MB/s SATA 6Gb/s SSD's as level 2 cache.

DoubleCheese · 28 Feb 2011 at 15:14

I noticed a massive difference in certain applications going from one old 250Gb WD Caviar HDD to two 1Tb Deskstars in RAID0.
There's a thread in here somewhere with a 3 disc RAID0 benchmark and it was scaling very well compared to 2 discs if I rememeber correctly.

413x · 28 Feb 2011 at 23:08

split opinions
zarf, i like my C drive to contain all my games and OS and applications, SSDs just arent at that price point yet as i require 200GB for that and more ideally, i would get no real benifit from an SSD without games as i only boot my PC twice a day and dont 'wait' for the boot, the only time i find waiting annoying is game level loads

also with apps such as firefox our internet speed is the limiting factor at 50-60 kilo bytes per second

so anything involving SSDs at current prices is not viable