Hard Drive Quistion

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know before I
order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for burning
and editing video?
Thanks in advance for any help.
david
32 answers Last reply
More about hard drive quistion
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know before I
    > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for burning
    > and editing video?
    > Thanks in advance for any help.
    > david
    >

    One of Fred Langa's recent newsletters had the following two items regarding
    RAID in desktops.

    1) RAID Issues
    2) Why I Don't Use RAID

    http://langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-16.htm#1

    Some "reader follow up" can be seen here.

    2) RAID-Users Speak Up

    http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-20.htm#2

    I offer this strictly for informational purposes as I coincidentally read it
    shortly before reading your post. I personally have no opinion on the
    subject as I have zero personal experience with RAID so please take it for
    "what it's worth."

    --
    D

    I was just trying to help.
    Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
    advice herein.
    No warranty is expressed or implied.
    Your mileage may vary.
    See store for details. :)

    Remove shoes to E-mail.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
    message news:2rrmfeF1e4pm9U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know before
    I
    > > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    > > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for
    burning
    > > and editing video?
    > > Thanks in advance for any help.
    > > david
    > >
    >
    > One of Fred Langa's recent newsletters had the following two items
    regarding
    > RAID in desktops.
    >
    > 1) RAID Issues
    > 2) Why I Don't Use RAID
    >
    > http://langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-16.htm#1
    >
    > Some "reader follow up" can be seen here.
    >
    > 2) RAID-Users Speak Up
    >
    > http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-20.htm#2
    >
    > I offer this strictly for informational purposes as I coincidentally read
    it
    > shortly before reading your post. I personally have no opinion on the
    > subject as I have zero personal experience with RAID so please take it for
    > "what it's worth."
    >
    > --
    > D
    >
    > I was just trying to help.
    > Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
    > advice herein.
    > No warranty is expressed or implied.
    > Your mileage may vary.
    > See store for details. :)
    >
    > Remove shoes to E-mail.

    Thank you HillBillyBuddhist for you quick and helpful subjestions. The
    articles sure seem to be against RAID.
    I was thinking about a RAID drive because at first glance it looked like two
    seperate drives but it seems to be only one.
    with two drive letters.
    david
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:EX16d.640310$Gx4.579122@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
    > message news:2rrmfeF1e4pm9U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >> "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> >I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know
    >> >before
    > I
    >> > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    >> > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for
    > burning
    >> > and editing video?
    >> > Thanks in advance for any help.
    >> > david
    >> >
    >>
    >> One of Fred Langa's recent newsletters had the following two items
    > regarding
    >> RAID in desktops.
    >>
    >> 1) RAID Issues
    >> 2) Why I Don't Use RAID
    >>
    >> http://langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-16.htm#1
    >>
    >> Some "reader follow up" can be seen here.
    >>
    >> 2) RAID-Users Speak Up
    >>
    >> http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-20.htm#2
    >>
    >> I offer this strictly for informational purposes as I coincidentally read
    > it
    >> shortly before reading your post. I personally have no opinion on the
    >> subject as I have zero personal experience with RAID so please take it
    >> for
    >> "what it's worth."
    >>
    >> --
    >> D
    >>
    >> I was just trying to help.
    >> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
    >> advice herein.
    >> No warranty is expressed or implied.
    >> Your mileage may vary.
    >> See store for details. :)
    >>
    >> Remove shoes to E-mail.
    >
    > Thank you HillBillyBuddhist for you quick and helpful subjestions. The
    > articles sure seem to be against RAID.
    > I was thinking about a RAID drive because at first glance it looked like
    > two
    > seperate drives but it seems to be only one.
    > with two drive letters.
    > david
    >
    >
    >


    Remember, your options on the 8400 are RAID 0 and RAID 1. Both involve two
    separate hard disks, but RAID 0 (striping) writes the data across two disks
    AS IF they were one. RAID 1 (mirroring) creates two identical hard disks,
    thereby providing a backup should one disk fail.

    Google RAID arrays and you'll want to read up on these two levels of RAID
    only, as they're what you'll be offered on the 8400.

    http://www.backupcentral.com/high-availability.html


    Stew
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    No need for striping. Dangerous too. Lose (drive goes bad) or drop (drive
    OK but disappears from the stripe set) one drive lose everything.
    Use RAID for mirroring or don't use it. My 2 cents.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:Zn26d.117551$Np2.103471@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:EX16d.640310$Gx4.579122@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
    > > message news:2rrmfeF1e4pm9U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > >> "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >> >I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know
    > >> >before
    > > I
    > >> > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    > >> > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for
    > > burning
    > >> > and editing video?
    > >> > Thanks in advance for any help.
    > >> > david
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> One of Fred Langa's recent newsletters had the following two items
    > > regarding
    > >> RAID in desktops.
    > >>
    > >> 1) RAID Issues
    > >> 2) Why I Don't Use RAID
    > >>
    > >> http://langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-16.htm#1
    > >>
    > >> Some "reader follow up" can be seen here.
    > >>
    > >> 2) RAID-Users Speak Up
    > >>
    > >> http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-09-20.htm#2
    > >>
    > >> I offer this strictly for informational purposes as I coincidentally
    read
    > > it
    > >> shortly before reading your post. I personally have no opinion on the
    > >> subject as I have zero personal experience with RAID so please take it
    > >> for
    > >> "what it's worth."
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> D
    > >>
    > >> I was just trying to help.
    > >> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions
    or
    > >> advice herein.
    > >> No warranty is expressed or implied.
    > >> Your mileage may vary.
    > >> See store for details. :)
    > >>
    > >> Remove shoes to E-mail.
    > >
    > > Thank you HillBillyBuddhist for you quick and helpful subjestions. The
    > > articles sure seem to be against RAID.
    > > I was thinking about a RAID drive because at first glance it looked like
    > > two
    > > seperate drives but it seems to be only one.
    > > with two drive letters.
    > > david
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > Remember, your options on the 8400 are RAID 0 and RAID 1. Both involve
    two
    > separate hard disks, but RAID 0 (striping) writes the data across two
    disks
    > AS IF they were one. RAID 1 (mirroring) creates two identical hard disks,
    > thereby providing a backup should one disk fail.
    >
    > Google RAID arrays and you'll want to read up on these two levels of RAID
    > only, as they're what you'll be offered on the 8400.
    >
    > http://www.backupcentral.com/high-availability.html
    >
    >
    > Stew

    Thank you Stew for you quick and helpful reply. I read the web sight you
    posted and
    now know a little more about the RAID drives.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "schnoopy" <schnoopy@loppy.com> wrote in message
    news:-OqdnXChEYrCXsXcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > No need for striping. Dangerous too. Lose (drive goes bad) or drop
    (drive
    > OK but disappears from the stripe set) one drive lose everything.
    > Use RAID for mirroring or don't use it. My 2 cents.

    Thanks schnoopy for you quick and helpful subjection.
    david
  7. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    The organic entity known as HillBillyBuddhist communicated the
    following:

    >>I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know
    >>before I
    >> order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    >
    > One of Fred Langa's recent newsletters had the following two items
    > regarding RAID in desktops.
    >
    > 1) RAID Issues
    > 2) Why I Don't Use RAID

    Some people have fear of flying without ever having flown.

    Fred Langa seems to have a similar inhibition.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    The organic entity known as schnoopy communicated the following:

    > No need for striping. Dangerous too. Lose (drive goes bad) or drop
    > (drive OK but disappears from the stripe set) one drive lose
    > everything. Use RAID for mirroring or don't use it. My 2 cents.

    True. The chance of losing your data is higher than when you use one disk.
    But the danger of one drive failing and losing "everything" is always
    present. That's what back-ups are for. Mirroring is interesting when you
    need in all cases to have your data present (servers). For desktops
    striping is the better option as it returns better performance.

    My 2 eurocents ;)

    Hans
  9. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Just not worth it from my perspective. The preformance/risk is too high.

    Tom
    "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns95725FC95E2E912345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > The organic entity known as schnoopy communicated the following:
    >
    >> No need for striping. Dangerous too. Lose (drive goes bad) or drop
    >> (drive OK but disappears from the stripe set) one drive lose
    >> everything. Use RAID for mirroring or don't use it. My 2 cents.
    >
    > True. The chance of losing your data is higher than when you use one disk.
    > But the danger of one drive failing and losing "everything" is always
    > present. That's what back-ups are for. Mirroring is interesting when you
    > need in all cases to have your data present (servers). For desktops
    > striping is the better option as it returns better performance.
    >
    > My 2 eurocents ;)
    >
    > Hans
  10. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:TI2dnYR-dtKG3cTcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
    > Just not worth it from my perspective. The preformance/risk is too high.

    The risk is usually minimal if you keep good backups which one must do
    anyway.

    > Tom
    > "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95725FC95E2E912345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > > The organic entity known as schnoopy communicated the following:
    > >
    > >> No need for striping. Dangerous too. Lose (drive goes bad) or drop
    > >> (drive OK but disappears from the stripe set) one drive lose
    > >> everything. Use RAID for mirroring or don't use it. My 2 cents.
    > >
    > > True. The chance of losing your data is higher than when you use one
    disk.
    > > But the danger of one drive failing and losing "everything" is always
    > > present. That's what back-ups are for. Mirroring is interesting when you
    > > need in all cases to have your data present (servers). For desktops
    > > striping is the better option as it returns better performance.
    > >
    > > My 2 eurocents ;)
    > >
    > > Hans
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    And mirroring the drive is an online backup.... dabbling with large USB 2.0
    drives for offline right now.

    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:sHk6d.643604$Gx4.416868@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > news:TI2dnYR-dtKG3cTcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
    > > Just not worth it from my perspective. The preformance/risk is too
    high.
    >
    > The risk is usually minimal if you keep good backups which one must do
    > anyway.
    >
    > > Tom
    > > "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns95725FC95E2E912345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > > > The organic entity known as schnoopy communicated the following:
    > > >
    > > >> No need for striping. Dangerous too. Lose (drive goes bad) or drop
    > > >> (drive OK but disappears from the stripe set) one drive lose
    > > >> everything. Use RAID for mirroring or don't use it. My 2 cents.
    > > >
    > > > True. The chance of losing your data is higher than when you use one
    > disk.
    > > > But the danger of one drive failing and losing "everything" is always
    > > > present. That's what back-ups are for. Mirroring is interesting when
    you
    > > > need in all cases to have your data present (servers). For desktops
    > > > striping is the better option as it returns better performance.
    > > >
    > > > My 2 eurocents ;)
    > > >
    > > > Hans
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know before
    I
    > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for burning
    > and editing video?
    > Thanks in advance for any help.
    > david

    Thank you all for your helpful replies. I am still confused about a RAID
    Drive though. As I understand the mirroring drive just copies the other
    drive? and the striping drive is like two separate drives?
    Is the RAID drive two separate drives or only one acting as two, if so what
    is the difference between RAID and a partition drive?
    You will have to excuse be for being so confused but I am a senior citizen
    and not as fast
    as I once was.
    Thanks again for all your help.
    david
  13. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:0Ok6d.643626$Gx4.316146@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know
    before
    > I
    > > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    > > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for
    burning
    > > and editing video?
    > > Thanks in advance for any help.
    > > david
    >
    > Thank you all for your helpful replies. I am still confused about a RAID
    > Drive though. As I understand the mirroring drive just copies the other
    > drive?

    Writes to both, can read from both as well. Two 120GB drives in a mirror
    will give you 120GB of useable space. The other 120Gb is a copy. Each
    drive can stand on it's own. Lose one drive and you still have the other.

    > and the striping drive is like two separate drives?
    > Is the RAID drive two separate drives or only one acting as two,

    Striping is two drives acting as one drive. Two 120GB drives will give you
    240GB of useable space. Your files (pieces of files) will be spread between
    the two drives. Lose one drive and you've lost everything.

    > if so what is the difference between RAID and a partition drive?

    Partioning is a way of dividing up a drive and creating several "logical"
    drives. One drive could have three (or more) partitions that show up as C:,
    D: & E: for instance.

    > You will have to excuse be for being so confused but I am a senior citizen
    and not as fast as I once was.
    > Thanks again for all your help.
    > david

    No problemo! Good to see you still learning and using the old noggin'...
    ;-)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "schnoopy" wrote:
    > Striping is two drives acting as one drive.
    > Two 120GB drives will give you 240GB of
    > useable space. Your files (pieces of files)
    > will be spread between the two drives.
    > Lose one drive and you've lost everything.


    And the advantage, of course, is that data
    that is striped across 2 drives can be put on
    the IDE channel faster than one drive could do
    it. The actual speedup depends on lots of
    variables, but it's nowhere close to double the
    speed of one drive. This RAID technique, known
    as RAID Level 0, is used a lot by gamers to
    speed up their HD accesses.

    *TimDaniels*
  15. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:0Ok6d.643626$Gx4.316146@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "david" <chevie40no-spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:5g16d.444096$OB3.418095@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > I am thinking about buying a Dimension 8400 and would like to know
    before
    > I
    > > order if the Raid drive is worth the extra money over the ATA drive?
    > > Also is the Dual Drives: 16xDVD-ROM DRIVE + 48x CD-RW Drive OK for
    burning
    > > and editing video?
    > > Thanks in advance for any help.
    > > david
    >
    > Thank you all for your helpful replies. I am still confused about a RAID
    > Drive though. As I understand the mirroring drive just copies the other
    > drive? and the striping drive is like two separate drives?
    > Is the RAID drive two separate drives or only one acting as two, if so
    what
    > is the difference between RAID and a partition drive?
    > You will have to excuse be for being so confused but I am a senior citizen
    > and not as fast
    > as I once was.
    > Thanks again for all your help.
    > david

    Thanks again schnoopy and TimDaniels for you very helpful replies. I am not
    a game player and I will have a backup CD drive on the computer so I will
    most likely be better of with one of the less exspence ATA drives and use a
    partition as I was looking for a C drive and a D drive independent of eack
    other.
    Thanks again.
    david
  16. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:uKudnUJTwf1yacTcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    > "schnoopy" wrote:
    > > Striping is two drives acting as one drive.
    > > Two 120GB drives will give you 240GB of
    > > useable space. Your files (pieces of files)
    > > will be spread between the two drives.
    > > Lose one drive and you've lost everything.
    >
    >
    > And the advantage, of course, is that data
    > that is striped across 2 drives can be put on
    > the IDE channel faster than one drive could do
    > it. The actual speedup depends on lots of
    > variables, but it's nowhere close to double the
    > speed of one drive.

    No, it is exactly twice the speed of a single drive for large contiguous
    data transfers.

    > This RAID technique, known
    > as RAID Level 0, is used a lot by gamers to
    > speed up their HD accesses.

    Not really.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    No it is not EXACTLY twice. There's overhead associated with striping, so
    it is clearly less than 100%.

    You speak with authority.

    But seem to be frequently wrong.
    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:adn6d.450541$OB3.24522@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    > news:uKudnUJTwf1yacTcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    >> "schnoopy" wrote:
    >> > Striping is two drives acting as one drive.
    >> > Two 120GB drives will give you 240GB of
    >> > useable space. Your files (pieces of files)
    >> > will be spread between the two drives.
    >> > Lose one drive and you've lost everything.
    >>
    >>
    >> And the advantage, of course, is that data
    >> that is striped across 2 drives can be put on
    >> the IDE channel faster than one drive could do
    >> it. The actual speedup depends on lots of
    >> variables, but it's nowhere close to double the
    >> speed of one drive.
    >
    > No, it is exactly twice the speed of a single drive for large contiguous
    > data transfers.
    >
    >> This RAID technique, known
    >> as RAID Level 0, is used a lot by gamers to
    >> speed up their HD accesses.
    >
    > Not really.
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:MY-dnUg2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
    > No it is not EXACTLY twice. There's overhead associated with striping, so
    > it is clearly less than 100%.

    WRONG, not for streaming like big file/video I/O. It's exactly twice. It's
    physics.
    Two drives have the same number of user sectors per track and both are
    spinning at the same RPM. Both are delivering data at that speed gives 2X.
    There is no place for anykind of overhead.

    > You speak with authority.
    >
    > But seem to be frequently wrong.

    Usually right you mean. It's just that you frequently need correction.

    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:adn6d.450541$OB3.24522@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    > > news:uKudnUJTwf1yacTcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    > >> "schnoopy" wrote:
    > >> > Striping is two drives acting as one drive.
    > >> > Two 120GB drives will give you 240GB of
    > >> > useable space. Your files (pieces of files)
    > >> > will be spread between the two drives.
    > >> > Lose one drive and you've lost everything.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> And the advantage, of course, is that data
    > >> that is striped across 2 drives can be put on
    > >> the IDE channel faster than one drive could do
    > >> it. The actual speedup depends on lots of
    > >> variables, but it's nowhere close to double the
    > >> speed of one drive.
    > >
    > > No, it is exactly twice the speed of a single drive for large
    contiguous
    > > data transfers.
    > >
    > >> This RAID technique, known
    > >> as RAID Level 0, is used a lot by gamers to
    > >> speed up their HD accesses.
    > >
    > > Not really.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    determining which drive to send which pieces?

    Tee hee.

    Idiot
    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:48o6d.644300$Gx4.37829@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > news:MY-dnUg2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
    >> No it is not EXACTLY twice. There's overhead associated with striping,
    >> so
    >> it is clearly less than 100%.
    >
    > WRONG, not for streaming like big file/video I/O. It's exactly twice.
    > It's
    > physics.
    > Two drives have the same number of user sectors per track and both are
    > spinning at the same RPM. Both are delivering data at that speed gives
    > 2X.
    > There is no place for anykind of overhead.
    >
    >> You speak with authority.
    >>
    >> But seem to be frequently wrong.
    >
    > Usually right you mean. It's just that you frequently need correction.
    >
    >> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    >> news:adn6d.450541$OB3.24522@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> >
    >> > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    >> > news:uKudnUJTwf1yacTcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    >> >> "schnoopy" wrote:
    >> >> > Striping is two drives acting as one drive.
    >> >> > Two 120GB drives will give you 240GB of
    >> >> > useable space. Your files (pieces of files)
    >> >> > will be spread between the two drives.
    >> >> > Lose one drive and you've lost everything.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> And the advantage, of course, is that data
    >> >> that is striped across 2 drives can be put on
    >> >> the IDE channel faster than one drive could do
    >> >> it. The actual speedup depends on lots of
    >> >> variables, but it's nowhere close to double the
    >> >> speed of one drive.
    >> >
    >> > No, it is exactly twice the speed of a single drive for large
    > contiguous
    >> > data transfers.
    >> >
    >> >> This RAID technique, known
    >> >> as RAID Level 0, is used a lot by gamers to
    >> >> speed up their HD accesses.
    >> >
    >> > Not really.
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:jr6dnd3QMMZfiMfcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
    > There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    > determining which drive to send which pieces?

    That was not the issue cretin. You said RAID 0 couldn't stream at 2X speed.
    You are WRONG. RAID 0 does stream at 2X speed and it does take a small
    amount of extra processing to keep that stream flowing at 2X speed. For
    software/firmware RAID like that on current mobos and low end Promise cards
    that processing is done by the host x86 CPU. For hardware RAID that
    processing is done by an onboard uP like on cards from www.3ware.com.
    Either way they stream RAID 0 for two drives at 2X speed.

    Get a clue. You are out of your depth.

    > Tee hee.
    >
    > Idiot
    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:48o6d.644300$Gx4.37829@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > > news:MY-dnUg2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
    > >> No it is not EXACTLY twice. There's overhead associated with striping,
    > >> so
    > >> it is clearly less than 100%.
    > >
    > > WRONG, not for streaming like big file/video I/O. It's exactly twice.
    > > It's
    > > physics.
    > > Two drives have the same number of user sectors per track and both are
    > > spinning at the same RPM. Both are delivering data at that speed gives
    > > 2X.
    > > There is no place for anykind of overhead.
    > >
    > >> You speak with authority.
    > >>
    > >> But seem to be frequently wrong.
    > >
    > > Usually right you mean. It's just that you frequently need correction.
    > >
    > >> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > >> news:adn6d.450541$OB3.24522@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >> >
    > >> > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    > >> > news:uKudnUJTwf1yacTcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
    > >> >> "schnoopy" wrote:
    > >> >> > Striping is two drives acting as one drive.
    > >> >> > Two 120GB drives will give you 240GB of
    > >> >> > useable space. Your files (pieces of files)
    > >> >> > will be spread between the two drives.
    > >> >> > Lose one drive and you've lost everything.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> And the advantage, of course, is that data
    > >> >> that is striped across 2 drives can be put on
    > >> >> the IDE channel faster than one drive could do
    > >> >> it. The actual speedup depends on lots of
    > >> >> variables, but it's nowhere close to double the
    > >> >> speed of one drive.
    > >> >
    > >> > No, it is exactly twice the speed of a single drive for large
    > > contiguous
    > >> > data transfers.
    > >> >
    > >> >> This RAID technique, known
    > >> >> as RAID Level 0, is used a lot by gamers to
    > >> >> speed up their HD accesses.
    > >> >
    > >> > Not really.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:

    > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > news:MY-dnUg2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
    >
    >>No it is not EXACTLY twice. There's overhead associated with striping, so
    >>it is clearly less than 100%.
    >
    > WRONG, not for streaming like big file/video I/O. It's exactly twice. It's
    > physics.
    > Two drives have the same number of user sectors per track and both are
    > spinning at the same RPM. Both are delivering data at that speed gives 2X.
    > There is no place for anykind of overhead.

    God, what you don't know could fill the Grand Canyon!
  22. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:

    > There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    > determining which drive to send which pieces?

    The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total. The
    speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation. Doubling
    this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed overhead, even if it
    existed, in the controller wouldn't make any difference since the
    controller can run circles around the discs.

    >
    > Tee hee.
    >
    > Idiot

    well ... makes you wonder who qualifies for this title.

    --
    Hans
  23. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy to argue
    when you're unclear on the concepts.


    "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9573742E1BFFC12345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    >
    >> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    >> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    >
    > The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total. The
    > speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation. Doubling
    > this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed overhead, even if it
    > existed, in the controller wouldn't make any difference since the
    > controller can run circles around the discs.
    >
    >>
    >> Tee hee.
    >>
    >> Idiot
    >
    > well ... makes you wonder who qualifies for this title.
    >
    > --
    > Hans
  24. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    >>> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    >>> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    >>
    >> The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total.
    >> The speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation.
    >> Doubling this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed
    >> overhead, even if it existed, in the controller wouldn't make any
    >> difference since the controller can run circles around the discs.
    >>
    > Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy to
    > argue when you're unclear on the concepts.

    I am not surpised you don't have the energy.

    And for people who are really interested in benchmarks, I give this link
    (out of many):

    http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20000329/fastrak66-15.html

    --
    Hans
  25. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.

    Just for simplicity, let's use Overall transfer rate.

    A single drive was 19.9. Therefore, two drives at 2X would be 39.8.

    Hmm. Two drives are only 39.0.

    Ahh, yes, overhead of 0.9 Mb/sec or 2.26% -- decidedly NOT zero. 2.26%.

    Again, I thank you for proving my point that Raid 0 does NOT provide 2X
    speed of a single drive, as there is a performance penalty, reasonably
    small, but not zero.

    Thanks for the support.

    Ron: Understand now?

    Tom
    "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns95738D1276BC312345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    >>>> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    >>>> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    >>>
    >>> The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total.
    >>> The speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation.
    >>> Doubling this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed
    >>> overhead, even if it existed, in the controller wouldn't make any
    >>> difference since the controller can run circles around the discs.
    >>>
    >> Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy to
    >> argue when you're unclear on the concepts.
    >
    > I am not surpised you don't have the energy.
    >
    > And for people who are really interested in benchmarks, I give this link
    > (out of many):
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20000329/fastrak66-15.html
    >
    > --
    > Hans
  26. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Not having enough energy to think, Tom Scales wrote:

    > Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.

    Reading is an art most of us have learned in school.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you didn't read the
    content before you posted the link and are surprised that it supported my
    point?

    Tom
    "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9573A3AF22D3712345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > Not having enough energy to think, Tom Scales wrote:
    >
    >> Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.
    >
    > Reading is an art most of us have learned in school.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:RKednTnPjIW5DsfcRVn-jw@comcast.com...
    > Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy to
    argue
    > when you're unclear on the concepts.

    You mean you've been outclassed technically and you can't respond.

    > "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9573742E1BFFC12345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > > The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    > >
    > >> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    > >> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    > >
    > > The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total.
    The
    > > speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation. Doubling
    > > this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed overhead, even if it
    > > existed, in the controller wouldn't make any difference since the
    > > controller can run circles around the discs.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Tee hee.
    > >>
    > >> Idiot
    > >
    > > well ... makes you wonder who qualifies for this title.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Hans
    >
    >
  29. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:1YOdnfwbK9ddOMfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
    > Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.
    >
    > Just for simplicity, let's use Overall transfer rate.
    >
    > A single drive was 19.9. Therefore, two drives at 2X would be 39.8.
    >
    > Hmm. Two drives are only 39.0.
    >
    > Ahh, yes, overhead of 0.9 Mb/sec or 2.26% -- decidedly NOT zero. 2.26%.
    >
    > Again, I thank you for proving my point that Raid 0 does NOT provide 2X
    > speed of a single drive, as there is a performance penalty, reasonably
    > small, but not zero.
    >
    > Thanks for the support.
    >
    > Ron: Understand now?

    Complete wacko. Whithin measurement error the result IS 2X.

    You're now proven to be a charlatan.

    > "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95738D1276BC312345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > > The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    > >>>> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    > >>>> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    > >>>
    > >>> The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total.
    > >>> The speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation.
    > >>> Doubling this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed
    > >>> overhead, even if it existed, in the controller wouldn't make any
    > >>> difference since the controller can run circles around the discs.
    > >>>
    > >> Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy to
    > >> argue when you're unclear on the concepts.
    > >
    > > I am not surpised you don't have the energy.
    > >
    > > And for people who are really interested in benchmarks, I give this link
    > > (out of many):
    > >
    > > http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20000329/fastrak66-15.html
    > >
    > > --
    > > Hans
    >
    >
  30. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Within measurement error?

    Sorry sir that we accidently took out your kidney instead of your appendix,
    but, within measurement error it was the right organ.

    2.26% is pretty big in the world of IT.

    You ARE entertaining.
    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:ZlF6d.647080$Gx4.42285@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > news:1YOdnfwbK9ddOMfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
    >> Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.
    >>
    >> Just for simplicity, let's use Overall transfer rate.
    >>
    >> A single drive was 19.9. Therefore, two drives at 2X would be 39.8.
    >>
    >> Hmm. Two drives are only 39.0.
    >>
    >> Ahh, yes, overhead of 0.9 Mb/sec or 2.26% -- decidedly NOT zero. 2.26%.
    >>
    >> Again, I thank you for proving my point that Raid 0 does NOT provide 2X
    >> speed of a single drive, as there is a performance penalty, reasonably
    >> small, but not zero.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the support.
    >>
    >> Ron: Understand now?
    >
    > Complete wacko. Whithin measurement error the result IS 2X.
    >
    > You're now proven to be a charlatan.
    >
    >> "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns95738D1276BC312345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    >> > The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    >> >>>> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    >> >>>> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    >> >>>
    >> >>> The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the total.
    >> >>> The speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation.
    >> >>> Doubling this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed
    >> >>> overhead, even if it existed, in the controller wouldn't make any
    >> >>> difference since the controller can run circles around the discs.
    >> >>>
    >> >> Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy to
    >> >> argue when you're unclear on the concepts.
    >> >
    >> > I am not surpised you don't have the energy.
    >> >
    >> > And for people who are really interested in benchmarks, I give this
    >> > link
    >> > (out of many):
    >> >
    >> > http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20000329/fastrak66-15.html
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Hans
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:77GdnZHErOQUUcfcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    > Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you didn't read the
    > content before you posted the link and are surprised that it supported my
    > point?

    This guy should be locked UP.

    > Tom
    > "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9573A3AF22D3712345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > > Not having enough energy to think, Tom Scales wrote:
    > >
    > >> Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.
    > >
    > > Reading is an art most of us have learned in school.
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Wacko.

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:g9OdnUBLoOZRpMbcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
    > Within measurement error?
    >
    > Sorry sir that we accidently took out your kidney instead of your
    appendix,
    > but, within measurement error it was the right organ.
    >
    > 2.26% is pretty big in the world of IT.
    >
    > You ARE entertaining.
    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:ZlF6d.647080$Gx4.42285@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    > > news:1YOdnfwbK9ddOMfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
    > >> Excellent. Thank you for providing a link that proves my point.
    > >>
    > >> Just for simplicity, let's use Overall transfer rate.
    > >>
    > >> A single drive was 19.9. Therefore, two drives at 2X would be 39.8.
    > >>
    > >> Hmm. Two drives are only 39.0.
    > >>
    > >> Ahh, yes, overhead of 0.9 Mb/sec or 2.26% -- decidedly NOT zero.
    2.26%.
    > >>
    > >> Again, I thank you for proving my point that Raid 0 does NOT provide 2X
    > >> speed of a single drive, as there is a performance penalty, reasonably
    > >> small, but not zero.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks for the support.
    > >>
    > >> Ron: Understand now?
    > >
    > > Complete wacko. Whithin measurement error the result IS 2X.
    > >
    > > You're now proven to be a charlatan.
    > >
    > >> "LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
    > >> news:Xns95738D1276BC312345679x81@194.109.133.29...
    > >> > The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
    > >> >>>> There's no overhead in breaking the stream up into two pieces and
    > >> >>>> determining which drive to send which pieces?
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> The speed of the slowest component determines the speed of the
    total.
    > >> >>> The speed of the disks is by far the slowest factor n the equation.
    > >> >>> Doubling this speed doubles up the total speed. The presumed
    > >> >>> overhead, even if it existed, in the controller wouldn't make any
    > >> >>> difference since the controller can run circles around the discs.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >> Sorry, but there is no way it runs at 2x. I don't have the energy
    to
    > >> >> argue when you're unclear on the concepts.
    > >> >
    > >> > I am not surpised you don't have the energy.
    > >> >
    > >> > And for people who are really interested in benchmarks, I give this
    > >> > link
    > >> > (out of many):
    > >> >
    > >> > http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20000329/fastrak66-15.html
    > >> >
    > >> > --
    > >> > Hans
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell Hard Drives Computers