Hardware Boost for Hard Drives

By on February 3, 2003, 10:57 AM
[URL=http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108231,00.asp]PCWorld[/URL] puts it into simple terms, they put a RAID setup in the test bench against single drives and see what the performance differences can get like.

[COLOR=royalblue]Once reserved for servers and high-end workstations, RAID technology for linking multiple hard drives is gaining favor with PC users looking to improve performance affordably. Tests by PC World show they're on to something: Two RAID-connected drives completed some tasks in 40 percent less time than one drive of the same type.[/COLOR]




User Comments: 11

Got something to say? Post a comment
iss said:
Raid is faster but it is also riskier. in a raid O setup if one drive fails you lose all the data on both drives.
MrGaribaldi said:
But if you can afford 4 drives, running RAID 0+1 should be both faster and safer... (since it's both striping and mirroring...)
Phantasm66 said:
I've never really gone for RAID 1. I would rather backup to another machine over a network connection, or to tape or something. My plans for 4 HDDs would be purely RAID 0.
Rick said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by iss [/i][b]Raid is faster but it is also riskier. in a raid O setup if one drive fails you lose all the data on both drives. [/b][/quote] I suppose.. But stastically, wouldn't your chances of 1 out 2 hard disks failing be the same as a single drive failing? :)You wouldn't be putting yourself in more danger necessarily, since your chances of a failing drive and equally picked among both single and double drive setups. Yeah? :confused: And if you do something wrong to your RAID setup (user error), corrupting your partitinos or whatnot - Would this have not happened to a single drive anyway... if you never had chosen to use RAID in the first place?Allow me to hop into Phantasm66's time machine and find out...
iss said:
[quote]I suppose.. But stastically, wouldn't your chances of 1 out 2 hard disks failing be the same as a single drive failing? [/quote] well I would actually feel more secure with two seagate drives in a raid 0 setup than I would with one IBM 60 Gb drive. :D
---agissi--- said:
Techspot, Raid has always appealed to me....its just I've never really knowen how to set it up ;) I also think it would make a good article, please take this into consideration.Thanks!
Rick said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by iss [/i][b]well I would actually feel more secure with two seagate drives in a raid 0 setup than I would with one IBM 60 Gb drive. :D [/b][/quote] Same here... :o
Phantasm66 said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i][b]time machine and find out... [/b][/quote] Always at your disposal....[img]http://phantazmm.freeservers.com/tardis.gif
/img]
StormBringer said:
This may sound odd, but I swear that thing is larger inside than it is outside. ;) BTW Agissi, if you use the SEARCH feature, you can find some great info here on RAID. At one time there was a Sticky post in Storage outlining RAID.
Per Hansson said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by ---agissi--- [/i][b]Techspot, Raid has always appealed to me....its just I've never really knowen how to set it up ;) I also think it would make a good article, please take this into consideration.Thanks! [/b][/quote]I believe I'm the only one in the staff that runs a RAID-0 setup, so if enough people want it; sure I'll write an article on it...
Phantasm66 said:
I also have RAID-0, I think 1-2 other members might as well....Stormbinger.....I think he has RAID-0???
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.