Re: Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- From: "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:52:16 -0700
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96B266D819D0Bidispcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Peter G" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:unTDhWMoFHA.2904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
<snip>
>
> I've read the other repies, and see that you mainly do graphics and
> video.
>
> If the video work involves capture, meaning a high speed HD is required
> as this is disk intensive, RAID 0 is an option. RAID 0 stores the data
> across the drives, but with no redundancy. It offer's much faster thruput
> to and from the disk's, up to 80 or 85%.
>
<snip>
Can you point me to a link that shows proof of what you say? In my own
admittedly informal testing I have found most onboard SATA RAID controllers
offer little or no performance advantage. With a 3rd party card ($$$$) there
are some speed advantages but I haven't seen this with any of the built in
controllers that I have used. It would be nice to see some impartial test
results.
Kerry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- From: DanS
- Re: Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- References:
- Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- From: Peter G
- Re: Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- From: DanS
- Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- Prev by Date: Visual Effects
- Next by Date: Re: Win XP reboots spontaneously when I launch IsoBister
- Previous by thread: Re: Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- Next by thread: Re: Backup, RAID, Mirror confusion...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|