1. I want to know if using RIAD doubles the cache? That is the only reason I could see doing it. Back in 1986 when 250gb was a rich man's storage and a Tb was something from George Lucas's script. Flash forward today where a 3tb drive costs 80 bucks. I cannot find reason to Raid, other then doing it as a mirrored back up of assets/storage.
Anyone? Oh I read Wiki's nose bleed article about it and did not find anything, or a reason it would make storage faster whether reading or writing. Hence, me thinking I missed an area where it stated that the Cache is combined. Other then a filled up Hdrive runs slower.
2. While I have your attention, How fast (all things being equal other then ssd to hdd) How fast will using a 2nd smaller ssd for a scratch disc to retrieve frequently used assets, when applied to video editing be, then just getting those assets off a 7200rpm 64mb cache be?
IE: Having two ssd's one for the C;\ drive and another drive ( a D: \ drive) for temp, or frequent files such as titles,mp3's jpg's etc. Or instead just having the C:\ Drive (SSD) accessing the assets off of an (HDD) drive? How much slower does that make the flow? Is the transfer rate of 264. noticed in minutes?
I know that importing via 3.0 and SSD is Fast. Doesn't compressed 264. video transfer pretty quick between drives? Are we talking about the difference of seconds by having two SSD's? One as the C: \ drive then another SSD as a 'scratch or D: \ drive, or just parking assets on the HDD drive and save few steps when looking for assets/parking them by having to park or place those files back in the scratch drive when re-working an edit.
2 questions, working on the same dilemma. If there was redundancy it is due to my confusion/ foggy understanding as well as trying to be as clear as I can.
Thanks in advance for explanations.