Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Harddisks hookup question

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 10, 2004 11:02:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I have 4 identical 80G WD drives and 2 DVD drives.

Currently, I have 2 80G on two RAID ports as master to form a RAID 1
mirror. The other 2 80G data drives are on one IDE channel as master
and slave.

The 2 DVD drives are on the second IDE channel as master and slave.

If I were to hook up the two 80G data drives to form a RAID 0
stripping, what should the configuration be for maximum speed?

Should I move the two RAID 1 discs to one channel as Master and Slave
or should I make the two RAID 0 discs as salves to the two RAID
channels?

From the research I've done, making the RAID 0 doesn't seem
worthwhile the risk of lossing the data as those are Data discs that
are rarely accessed concurrently, would you agree?

Thanks.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
April 11, 2004 9:16:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

<goldfgn@telus.net> wrote in message
news:8ngg70l42udqr4uh6ucpffoel0grop13r6@4ax.com...

> I have 4 identical 80G WD drives and 2 DVD drives.

> Currently, I have 2 80G on two RAID ports as master
> to form a RAID 1 mirror. The other 2 80G data drives
> are on one IDE channel as master and slave.

> The 2 DVD drives are on the second IDE channel as master and slave.

> If I were to hook up the two 80G data drives to form a RAID 0
> stripping, what should the configuration be for maximum speed?

When there is simultaneous access, separate channels is fastest.

> Should I move the two RAID 1 discs to one channel as Master and Slave
> or should I make the two RAID 0 discs as salves to the two RAID channels?

Thats harder to say because it isnt clear from
that you have said what the usage pattern will be.

As long as there isnt a lot of movement of large amounts
of data between the RAID0 and RAID1 arrays, the components
would normally be best on separate channels, so each channel
should have one of the RAID0 and one of the RAID1 drives on it.

> From the research I've done, making the RAID 0 doesn't seem
> worthwhile the risk of lossing the data as those are Data discs
> that are rarely accessed concurrently, would you agree?

Yes, there isnt normally any point in RAID0 with drives like that unless
you are doing something rather uncommon like raw video capture at
a very high rate. And it generally makes more sense to not do that
by doing digital capture instead of using RAID0 for it.
!