RAID 0 and Video

[nkrempely]

Hi, I was curious to know the best setup for doing DCC and video editing. My basic idea is to have at least 2 drives because you take from one and write to the other which is faster than reading and writing to the same drive. I am also planning on do a raid 0 with 2 disks, do you think I need a third to support my idea?

 

[jheine]

For what you are planning, you do need a third, because the system will look at the stripped drives as a single drive. You idea is a bit different. In the past, I've seen it recommended that you use one drive as a system drive and a second as a swap/data drive.

Jarrett

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new"><b><font color=red>Join The THGC Music Project</font color=red></b></A>

 

[nkrempely]

Well from what I have gathered, if I have 2 hard drives together as a raid 0, I get better performance and since they act as 1, I will need another for any video editing and 3d stuff. The reason is that if stuff you are working with is on 1 drive then it is more efficient to take from 1 and put to another otherwise the disk is reading and writing on the same drive which takes more time and is less secure. So what I am trying to do is have the 2 disk raid for all important things like os and data and I am assuming that I need a 3rd disk to be at top performance.

 

[scamtrOn]

with two hard drives you double the chances of hard drive failure. keep that in mind.

now for your answer; the fastest way to do this is to do raid 0 with your os and what ever else you want on there (like you mentioned). and your third drive with be used for storage. so you with do most of your work on the raid setup and store your files on the third drive.

<font color=orange><b>as you get older, your hard drive becomes floppy, but don't fear viagra is here. viagra puts the hard back in your drive!!!

 

[nkrempely]

How worried should I be with lossing data, I have never lost anything on my harddrives that I have now. That seems like a really rare event.

 

[scamtrOn]

safest is to get wd and if you get ibm you should worry your ass off... even with the new ones

<font color=orange><b>as you get older, your hard drive becomes floppy, but don't fear viagra is here. viagra puts the hard back in your drive!!!

 

[nkrempely]

Whys that? Why would the newer ibms be worse than older Western digitals. I would certainly love to see your references.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

Someone posted on toms hardware a couple of months ago. He had two 120GXP's in raid 1 for data integrity... till both died within hours of each other. OUCH.

Reputation means alot in the storage busness... possibly more than actual reliability figures.
And how IBM handled the 75/60GXP fiasco was a disgrace.


<i>"Revenues were less than robust"</i> - QWEST
<i>"The company applied its accounting policies incorrectly"</i> - WORLDCOM
<i>"Certian financial adjustments may be required"</i> - AOL+TW.

 

[nkrempely]

So since I don't know squat about the history of the storage competition who's good and who's bad. I thought that the new hitatchi (not ibm anymore) deskstar 180GXPs were good.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

Well the sale of IBM's dard drive division to hitachi is mostly due to the 75/60gxp problems. the problems killed sales and thus profits.

Ive heard of some 120GXP's having problems... but far less than the 75/60gxp series. as for the 180GXP's well people are too scared of IBM to get them i think.

When my 60gxp badsectored for the 3rd time i gave up and got a maxtor then a WD JB drive. Both are going much better than what my 60gxp ever did.

And who is more reliable depends on who you talk to. generally seagate, W.D. and maxtor have pretty good reliability... though the introduction of 1 year warantee's wasn't too great.
Fortunately the W.D. 'JB' series still has a nice 3 year warantee!


<i>"Revenues were less than robust"</i> - QWEST
<i>"The company applied its accounting policies incorrectly"</i> - WORLDCOM
<i>"Certian financial adjustments may be required"</i> - AOL+TW.

 

[nkrempely]

Interesting, very interesting. Tell why IBM's prices are above normal or just higher if they aren't expected to be good drives. Also have you read maximum pc's article on the drives. The reason why I am getting the deskstar 180GXP is so that I can [-peep-] myself even more and shovel out an additional $100 to get the diskStaq card to utilize the tag and seel feature on the disks, not to mention that they beat out the other drives. I'd like to see it that I am buying when things or on the up again, guess that I'll find out the hard way, although, what can anyone do to guarantee backup.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

well back when i got my 60gxp the extra cost with IBM drives was reasoned as "buying quality"
boy was that proven wrong.


<i>"Revenues were less than robust"</i> - QWEST
<i>"The company applied its accounting policies incorrectly"</i> - WORLDCOM
<i>"Certian financial adjustments may be required"</i> - AOL+TW.