Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAID with 8MB cache hardrive

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • NAS / RAID
  • Cache
  • Performance
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
July 3, 2002 9:20:32 PM

Just wondering if you will gain any significant performance in a RAID setup by using Western Digital 8MB cache hardrives compared to regular 2MB cache hardrives? Or will performance level stay the same?
Thx

More about : raid 8mb cache hardrive

July 3, 2002 9:32:15 PM

RAID 0 or 1

<font color=blue>HOSED = Horrific operating system error detected</font color=blue>
Related resources
July 4, 2002 6:06:31 AM

RAID 0.

Thanks oldbear for the link to the other post.
July 4, 2002 6:55:28 AM

mmmmm sweet 8mb cache goodness. *drool*

So I fixed my BIG PC problem by pressing the reset button. I'm not a moron am i? :lol: 
July 4, 2002 7:46:57 PM

lol
but I believe 8mb cache hardrives are only good on their own.
July 4, 2002 11:33:48 PM

HEHEHEHE! I just bought 2 of those and stripped em. OMG! it will load a q3 map with all items weapons and bots in about 1.5 seconds! It is fast!

If an orange was driving a racecar would it peel out? www.jxfiles.com
July 4, 2002 11:53:16 PM

possibly.
the 8mb cache does little for sustained reads and writes, so 2 drives together u see less of a difference. But a raid 0 with 2 JB's would shine handling lots of small files.

So I fixed my BIG PC problem by pressing the reset button. I'm not a moron am i? :lol: 
July 4, 2002 11:55:34 PM

Whoops you beat me to the post.

So two WD JB's in a RAID 0 won't have any advantage with larger files?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Vince604 on 07/04/02 07:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 5, 2002 12:18:45 AM

Boy, I love my WD 80GB JB, but I haven't yet even installed an OS on it. My new P4 system is sitting there doing nothing with nothing installed at the moment. Anyway, which is best for purely performance, FAT32 or NTFS?

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
July 5, 2002 2:17:07 AM

purely performance wise i belive fat32 is better, however fat32 have some well known limitations such as the 4gb file limit, HUGE cluster sizes for large partitions and troubles with super sized clusters over 64gb.

when i first used win2k i had a mix of ntfs and fat32.
in the end its easier to do all ntfs. specially with todays modern drives.

P.S. i also reccomend a seperate system partition :) 


So I fixed my BIG PC problem by pressing the reset button. I'm not a moron am i? :lol: 
July 9, 2002 3:05:30 PM

Quote:

P.S. i also reccomend a seperate system partition

when you say that, you mean load windows on one hard disk/ and or partition, and all your data on the second partition (drive letter) or separate hdd?

doesnt that make all your typical folders and directories in the different "custom" place, witch makes it hard to hunt for everytimes you are asked to find a file/ and or egghhh!, I dont know. its just everything has to be off the root of C: otherwise I find myself lost in the FS.
July 9, 2002 11:50:06 PM

well i keep mine simple

a 5gig partition at the start of the drive (where transfer rates are highest) with my win2k OS, program files, swap file and hibernate file.

the rest of the drive contains the other partition, all the important stuff, my documents folder, games, audio and video tools etc.

after my hard drive crash im a bit paranoid, so i also regulary backup to my Second hard disk (which generally acts as my storehouse for movies, porn & mp3s)

Proud owner of the <b>Beige Beast</b> :lol: 
!