Raid or 8mb cache

[Grub]

I've got a WD 40 GB 7200 RPM 2MB cache drive. What would increase my performance more... a raid array with identical drives, or a single WD 80 GB JB drive. (or maybe one of each in an array).


...ummm...sorry, I forgot what I was going to say...

 

[uther]

You are going to get more throughput with a RAID configuration as opposed to a drive with more cache. While RAID 0 will not double your bandwidth, it will be a significant increase.

 

[HammerBot]

For a significant improvement in HD performance, RAID0 is the way to go. The extra cache only has marginal benefits.
However, you should also consider the disadvantages of RAID0 regarding data security. Read the RAID FAQ.

<i><b>Engineering is the fine art of making what you want from things you can get</b></i>
<A HREF="http://www.btvillarin.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=655" target="_new">My systems</A>

 

[Ncogneto]

what is your data access patterns? Are you transfering alot of large files? If so then the RAID 0 array would be the best option. Are you doing alot of small size fall transfers( which is more typical in a desktop env.) then the 8 meg cache drive would probably be the best route as RAID 0 ( contrary to what most people seem to think ) does little if nothing for small file transfers ( in some cases it actually slows things down a bit).

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[HammerBot]

That certainly depends on your stripe size. if you set it sufficiently low, you will get performance increase even for small files!

<i><b>Engineering is the fine art of making what you want from things you can get</b></i>
<A HREF="http://www.btvillarin.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=655" target="_new">My systems</A>

 

[nize]

I think ncogneto is referring to the search times probably being better on a new high-end drive compared to the slower of two older drives...

Regards,
Anders

 

[mbetea]

as ncogneto said, i'd recommend a single drive w/8mb cache, depending on what you're doing. unless there's been some "breakthrough" in the past month or so with ide raid, 2 drives in raid0 <b>are not</b> going to give you substantial performance increases over a single drive. added to that you're just making 2 drives more vulnerable putting them in raid0.

cdrw, floppy drive, cd-rom? what are these strange words you speak of?

 

[Grub]

Well...in the interim my wife flipped a breaker on and off in my house. Now my Hard drive is making bad noises and I'm RMA'ing it. I set up a raid 1 to backup the drive. I was suprised at how easy it was to do. My MOBO has a fasttrac 100 on it and I just plugged them in and off it went. I think I will get the WD 80 jb. It seems like a good deal, and as I recently just found, a three year warranty is worth the extra cost.

...ummm...sorry, I forgot what I was going to say...

 

[Ncogneto]

unless there's been some "breakthrough" in the past month or so with ide raid, 2 drives in raid0 are not going to give you substantial performance increases over a single drive.

Thank you so much.... I have been saying this for some time. Unless working with very large files on a regular basis, for the typical user RAID 0 offers very little in terms of increased performance. Typically one stripes his/her IDE drives, runs a few so-so benchmarks ( ie hdtach, sisandra ) and sees huge improvements in STR. Unfortuanatly very seldom in real world applications is the disk accessed in such a way. What we are actually seeing inmore of a placebo effect.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 12/11/02 04:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>