1 SATA or 2 drive RAID 0

[brendini]

Here it is. The behemouth question that plagues us all. (well maybe not all of us, but it seems to bug me and a lot of other people.) Is it better in 2 months to buy one SATA drive or 2 high perfoming ATA 100 drives, each having an 8 meg cache. The SATA drives are apparently cooler and probably more reliable, but they aren't going to be as juicy fast as they should until about a year. Getting two 40 giggers should give me some flex, in my view. Size is really not an issue, as it seems that I am one of the few people who understand that CD's really are for storage, not just for transport and archiving. If I really needed the space I could always just reformat and have 2 drives. What do y'all think? (no, I'm not from Texas) Thanks to all who respond!

<Brendini>

 

[LumberJack]

I say 2 IDE 100 drives are better running in raid 0. Plus their cheaper and more readily available. 8 meg cache is a must...

To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!

 

[khha4113]

8 meg cache is a must...

Why is that? I don't recall it is a requirement for RAID as I have 2 of IBM 40G 2MB cache setup as RAID-0, and it's performance is still great.

Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

 

[LumberJack]

Oh no... I mean it's not like you can't do it without it. But once you get to large disk volumes in excess of 100 gigs in raid the 8 meg buffer goes a long way in reducing your file swapping time. Especially with handling large files. For smaller volume drives like 40 gig the difference is likely less noticable.

To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!