XP Spanned vs. Stripped

[kevinshi]

(I see in the FAQ that there is a strong recommendation to use HW instead of SW RAID, so consider me already warned on that point...)

I have two identical 250GB drives in my XP Media Center. I want XP applications (including Media Center) to “see” them as one 500GB volume.

Both drives contain no data. I am fine with the notion that if one goes bad I will lose all data (nothing mission critical here).

I have a third small drive onto which I have the OS itself installed and run from, so these to disks are pure data only.

From reading the FAQ and XP help it looks like what I want to use Stripping (~RAID level 0) as opposed to Spanning (I assume the closest RAID equivalent is JBOD).

Are there any drawbacks to using Stripping in this situation vs. using Spanning?

Thanks,
kevin

 

[Crashman]

Just the risk of data loss you mentioned, and the increased load on the CPU you mentioned.

Spanning shouldn't require additional resources or increase the risk of loosing data (except maybe for the file that crosses the bridge between the two drives).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[kevinshi]

Is there more cpu used for stripped over spanned or are they the same (sucky sw solutions)?

Thanks,
kevin

 

[Crashman]

Spanning shouldn't require any processing power, it doesn't manipulate the data, it simply links the end of one partition to the beginning of the next. Stripping has to split the data between drives, that's why it requires processing power.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Codesmith]

Why not get download HD Tach and benchmark it both ways. Then you will now whether the increased speed is worth the increase in cpu utilization.

It will report access time, cpu utilization and average transfer rate.

Since both drives are empty it won't be much work and I am very curious as to the results.

 

[johng34]

Forgive me if I'm telling you something that you already know, but this might be helpful. Stipped increases the data rate that the PC can write data to a drive, as it's writing approx. 1/2 the data to one drive and 1/2 the data to the other drive, so it doesn't have to "wait" for a single drive to handle all the data. I work in the video editing industry and when you are trying to capture uncompressed HD video, it's not possible unless your writing to an array of drives that are stripped. This does mean that IF YOU LOSE ONE DRIVE (IT CRASHES) YOU'VE LOST ALL OF YOUR DATA. But if speed (overall) is important and your application is disk intensive, stripping is the way to gain speed.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

What is with you people that post in these long-dead threads? Don't you see that the last post in this thread was 3 1/2 YEARS ago? Whatever the issue was that was being discussed in this thread is long since fixed, superseded, or irrelevant now. In all likelihood, the people who posted in this thread don't even frequent this forum anymore and won't ever see your response.

Use your head.

 

[Paperdoc]

SomeJoe7777 is dead right, with one small exception. Sometimes others read these things and learn something for their own use. However, even that can be a problem. In this case, the info and ideas offered are 3½ years old, and in this field that is significant.