S
sdeyoreo
If I use two 120GB drives in a RAID 0, will I get 240 GB storage or
120 GB?
120 GB?
S
sneekez
yes you will, you would need an additional two for redundant backup which is
called 0+1 hth...
called 0+1 hth...
J
JAD
will I get 240 GB storage or
YES you will????????????/
will what?
YES you will????????????/
will what?
C
Cuzman
" If I use two 120GB drives in a RAID 0, will I get 240 GB storage or 120
GB? "
You need to read up on what the different RAID arrays do, so you can make an
informed decision:
http://www.uni-mainz.de/~neuffer/scsi/what_is_raid.html
GB? "
You need to read up on what the different RAID arrays do, so you can make an
informed decision:
http://www.uni-mainz.de/~neuffer/scsi/what_is_raid.html
C
chrisj
yes you will get 240gb of storage.
JAD said:
R
Ruel Smith (Big Daddy)
You'll get 240 GB, minus space lost in formatting, which will probably net
you somewhere around 230 MB.
--
Big Daddy Ruel Smith
My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
9:54am up 40 days 18:40, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.33, 0.14
My Windows XP machine uptime:
Something less...
S
S.Heenan
Ruel said:
Space is _not_ lost in formatting. The apparent "loss" stems from
manufacturers using base 10 numbers like 120,000,000,000 bytes, which they
call a 120GB hard drive. The OS will see it as [120E9]/[1.024^3] which is
111.76GB, base 2.
S
Stephen Austin
Space _is_ "lost"(1) in formatting, by formatting a drive, you are
defining a specific file system upon that drive, this requires things such
as file index tables etc which do use up space.
Steve
(1)by lost I refer to _usable_ space lost
S
somebody
With RAID 0 you will get 240GB and >2 times greater risk of hardware
related data loss (which, if you have any extensive experience of
modern ide-drives, should make you realize there's a problem) . At
slightly better speed than standard IDE.
With RAID 1 you will get 120GB and close to infinite hardware data
integrity. At same speed as IDE.
Other solutions:
RAID 5: Better capacity than RAID 1, at similar, very high data
integrity, but rather low performance. Needs three 120GB drives for
240GB storage.
RAID 0+1: combines benefits from 1 and 0 by filling your case with
steaming hard drives. Four 120GB drives for 240GB storage.
SCSI: Probably many times the data integrity of RAID 0, due to single
drive and better quality. But also more expensive than even RAID 1,
while outclassed, in terms of data integrity. Good speed.
IDE only: KISS (my choice)
R
Ruel Smith (Big Daddy)
Are you nuts? My Sandra Filesystem benchmark is nearly 41000 with (2) Maxtor
ATA133 40GB 7200rpm drives with 2MB cache. Try around 31000 for a single
drive. My brother put (2) Maxtor SATA 80GB 7200rpm drives with 8MB cache on
ICH5R SATA RAID and is scoring almost 72000. Try and get anywhere close to
that with a single drive! RAID 0 stripes open up the biggest bottleneck in
your system - disk I/O. If I upgraded to newer drives with denser platters
and larger 8MB cache, I'd probably score very well close to my brother's
score. It's been crossing my mind...
)Wrong. Test after test has proven that RAID 1 is quite a bit slower than
running a single drive. There is a lot of overhead involved in writing the
same data to 2 drives.
You better know about SCSI if you go that route. For home use, IDE is much
more bang for the buck. SCSI drives are small, have low platter density,
and are very expensive.
I run IDE RAID and would never, ever, ever go back to a single drive. I
installed a 3rd drive for backup to keep my files from going bye-bye when
and if a drive ever poops out. Maxtor has been very good to me for
reliability.
IDE RAID 0 with a nice large 3rd drive for backup: Can you say "rocket?" (my
choice)
--
Big Daddy Ruel Smith
My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
3:15pm up 42 days 0:00, 2 users, load average: 0.24, 0.14, 0.16
My Windows XP machine uptime:
Something less...
S
Stephen Austin
Modern hard drives are actually damn reliable now-a-days. In addition,
with RAID 0, the speed boost is FAR more than "slightly faster than IDE".
As always, it is a good idea to have a backup, just on the off-chance that
the unlikely does happen. And, unless you are using the system as a
critical server or similar, RAID is without a doubt worth doing.
Steve
S
somebody
Big Daddy, I appreciate your many contributions to this group, and I
like seeing them, even if they often don't contain any precise enough
or relevant enough, information to exactly answer some question. I
have no problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, your energy,
helpfulness, all round knowledge and enthusiasm is an asset to this
group...
- No I'm not nuts. Why do you ask?
So? Sisoft Sandra reports lots of nonsense, all the time.
Did you measure that in the same way as "nearly" 41000? Or is it just
your estimate?
You may have accomplished 30% increase, as you claim, and when you
present a serious benchmark I'll be duefully impressed, but I won't
switch to RAID 0 anyway. I will always consider RAID 1 though, but you
know what the problem is? Sooner or later, I'll need that capacity for
something else.
No. It's up to the RAID controller. If you could run RAID 1 as fast as
IDE a couple of years ago, or even 1% faster, I see no reason why it
shouldn't work today.
Oh, I didn't recommend SCSI. I bought my last SCSI some 13 years ago
(105MB Quantum, still works). On the contrary, I tried to say that
even if you're attracted by the quality, IDE RAID 1 is still cheaper
and safer.
Never go back to what? Exactly what single drive did you use before
your 7200rpm ATA133 2MB cache RAID 0 arrangement?
Ok, just don't go around and pretend people will get twice the disk
speed with RAID 0. (And, no, you haven't, ...exactly. I know.)
Ancra