2 drives or 1 drive?

I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to replace both of your drives
though?


Both my current drives are fairly small ( 40 + 60gb ) si i thoughti
would replace them as they are nearing full.

I always keep my data. games etc on a different drive to my os. If i
get just one 160gb sata drive can i still keep the 60gb ide drive
hooked up for backup on the ide controller?

Also will i need to press F6 during xp setup to tell it about the sata
controller and drive.

My mobo is a a7n8x-e deluxe.

thanks


paul

"me!!" wrote in message
news
Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

With an optimal choice of HDs then RAID 0 wiil be faster for some things.

Getting the best/fastest model HD is essential regardless of the RAID 0 vs
JBOD choice.

"tHE_dOC" wrote in message
...
well the speed is all depended on how good the controller and drives are,
personally i have a 2x160 raid 0 array, using maxtor 8mb cache, running on
the promise raid controller on the PC-DL Deluxe board and i only manage to
get about 40mb/s of sustained data rate. On my last mobo with a highpoint
raid controller this was closer to 60mb/s using the same disks.

The problem is more likely the method used to measure the 40/60 and/or how
the array and stripe size were set. Promise is fast.

"rstlne" wrote in message
...

"me!!" wrote in message
news
Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

Thanks

Paul


Everything I have read says that you'll see better speed from 2 80's
running
in raid 0..
That's how I am planning on doing my next build so maybee you can tell
me
how it works out

"me!!" wrote in message
...



I have 2 Raptors in a RAID0 array, and it is much faster than my previous
7200 rpm SATA drives. But I have not tried the Raptors without RAID.


I would like a pair of raptors but my budget would limit me to 2 of
the 36.7gb drives.

For the same price i could get 2 120gb 7200rpm sata rives.

Two slow drives in RAID 0 may NOT be as fast as a single 80gb Raptor.

If running in raid 0, do the drives show up as a single partition or
do you still get 2 drive letters?

It just looks like a single drive when using RAID 0.

"me!!" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to replace both of your drives
though?


Both my current drives are fairly small ( 40 + 60gb ) si i thoughti
would replace them as they are nearing full.

I always keep my data. games etc on a different drive to my os. If i
get just one 160gb sata drive can i still keep the 60gb ide drive
hooked up for backup on the ide controller?

You can have a number of drive. Your mobo should support at leats 4
ATA/EIDE devices. An ATA addon card is less than $50 and allows 4 more.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:50:32 GMT, "rstlne"
wrote:


"me!!" wrote in message
news
Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

Thanks

Paul


Everything I have read says that you'll see better speed from 2 80's running
in raid 0..
That's how I am planning on doing my next build so maybee you can tell me
how it works out

This is not a flame, just an opposite opinion, but everything I've
read says that you're better off abandoning RAID 0, placing your OS on
the fastest drive you can afford, and installing a second drive as
large as you can afford for backups, data, storage, etc.


Ron

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:37:40 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, me!!
wrote:

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

[snip]

This depends completely on just how you define "better off". No, that is not
a facetious answer. Even ignoring the cost issue, reliability !=
performance... and in this context, they tend to be mutually exclusive.
(Now,if you were to go with *four* drives in a RAID 0+1 setup, you could
sort'a "have your cake and eat it too" -- but the cost would obviously be MUCH
higher)

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

[snip]

Ahhh... Now this is a much simpler (hence, easier to answer) question.

IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the expense of
slightly reduced *write* performance -- and most importantly, significantly
reduced overall system reliability. Any given HDD has a certain chance of
failing. RAID-0 makes the system completely dependant on *both* drives
operating correctly; so, all other things remaining equal, the overall chance
of a catastrophic *system* failure is approximately doubled.

IOW, it's a trade-off. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

"Jay T. Blocksom" wrote in
message om...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:37:40 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
me!!
wrote:

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

[snip]

This depends completely on just how you define "better off". No, that is
not
a facetious answer. Even ignoring the cost issue, reliability !=
performance... and in this context, they tend to be mutually exclusive.
(Now,if you were to go with *four* drives in a RAID 0+1 setup, you could
sort'a "have your cake and eat it too" -- but the cost would obviously be
MUCH
higher)

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

[snip]

Ahhh... Now this is a much simpler (hence, easier to answer) question.

IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the expense
of
slightly reduced *write* performance --

NO, there's no reduction in write performance. The write performance of a
RAID 0 array is significantly better than a single drive just like reads.

[snip]
[snip]


IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the expense
of
slightly reduced *write* performance -- and most importantly,
significantly
reduced overall system reliability. Any given HDD has a certain chance of
failing. RAID-0 makes the system completely dependant on *both* drives
operating correctly; so, all other things remaining equal, the overall
chance
of a catastrophic *system* failure is approximately doubled.

Incorrect, Do the math. In a Raid 0 setup, system catastrophy is "HALVED".
All things being equal, one drive fails "which one is anyone's guess" you
still have the option of rebuilding the array. The chance of two drives
failing at exactly the same time is a possibility which is why you have a
second back-up option. (People do, do this, don't they?) I sure as hell do!

IOW, it's a trade-off. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

"Asimov's Dog!" wrote in message
...
[snip]
[snip]


IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the
expense
of
slightly reduced *write* performance -- and most importantly,
significantly
reduced overall system reliability. Any given HDD has a certain
chance of
failing. RAID-0 makes the system completely dependant on *both*
drives
operating correctly; so, all other things remaining equal, the overall
chance
of a catastrophic *system* failure is approximately doubled.

Incorrect, Do the math. In a Raid 0 setup, system catastrophy is
"HALVED".
All things being equal, one drive fails "which one is anyone's guess"
you
still have the option of rebuilding the array. The chance of two drives
failing at exactly the same time is a possibility which is why you have
a
second back-up option. (People do, do this, don't they?) I sure as hell
do!
You are confusing RAID0 (striping), with RAID1 (mirroring). With RAID0. if
you lose either drive, you lose _all_ the data. You have no possibility to
rebild the array, since there is no redundancy. This is why people wanting
the performance of RAID0, with redundancy, opt for RAID0+1.

IOW, it's a trade-off. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Best Wishes