Raid0.. 16MB vs 8MB cache?

I've seen Michaelahess talking about his two Spinpoint 250GB Sata's outperforming 2 15k SCSI drives, so I was thinking I'd try that out. I could also get two WDCs, with 16 MB caches, though. The Spinpoints that I'm looking at only have 8 MB caches. What would the impact be on performance in a raid0 configuration of the differing cache sizes?
I've also read that a single 320GB Sata2 can be almost as fast as a 10k drive.. I could get two 320GB disks instead :D Or just one heh.
I'm mainly interested in the faster load times, but I don't want to sacrifice other performance aspects (I don't care about reliability though)
Thanks for your time!
3 answers Last reply
More about raid0 16mb cache
  1. Hmm.. are you saying that a single 74GB Raptor would be better for my OS/game disk than 2x320GB in RAID0, or that they'd have very similar performance? I don't care what I use for data. I don't think I'll dual up the 10ks.. that's a bit too pricey for me, as I would want a secondary disk setup for my important data. I would do one 10k and a Sata2, or two Sata2's in RAID0. Thanks for the very informative post!
  2. HDtach shows my 2xWD 160gig 16mb hitting the 3Gb/sec limit when they're bursting data. 106MB/sec sustained sequintial read.
  3. If I went Raid0 with two Raptors, is there much of a difference with overall speed? How bout 3? I could care less about reliabilty on my win/game drive and my data/porn is on another raid0 setup. Anyway have this setup? Am I wasting my time and should just get one raptor? Also, the raptors with 8M cache or 16 cache....does that make much of a difference?
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives Performance Cache Storage