I'm a gamer.
My system spec is in my sig. For those who can't see it, I have a stock speed E6600, 2GB 800mhz ram and 4 hard drives.
My hard drives are set up as 2 raid 0 arrays: one for the system and one for my games and other istalled programs, and archived documents.
I have an external backup, but that is used most often by another machine. I would like to have an easier and more redundant backup solution, so:
In my new config, I want a RAID 1 of 2 drives as my backup/archive disk, and the speediest setup for the other two.
Now, I could either go for two seperate drives, set up as my arrays are at the moment, which would give me higher simultaneous read/writes, or I could go for a single RAID 0 array, and have system and programs both on it.
My question is: Which would offer more performance?
On the one hand, I would have more multitasking, on the other, a higher speed. Both lead to more read/writes per sec.
Can you draw parallels with CPU development (clock speeds/cores), or is it different for HDs?
My system spec is in my sig. For those who can't see it, I have a stock speed E6600, 2GB 800mhz ram and 4 hard drives.
My hard drives are set up as 2 raid 0 arrays: one for the system and one for my games and other istalled programs, and archived documents.
I have an external backup, but that is used most often by another machine. I would like to have an easier and more redundant backup solution, so:
In my new config, I want a RAID 1 of 2 drives as my backup/archive disk, and the speediest setup for the other two.
Now, I could either go for two seperate drives, set up as my arrays are at the moment, which would give me higher simultaneous read/writes, or I could go for a single RAID 0 array, and have system and programs both on it.
My question is: Which would offer more performance?
On the one hand, I would have more multitasking, on the other, a higher speed. Both lead to more read/writes per sec.
Can you draw parallels with CPU development (clock speeds/cores), or is it different for HDs?