Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: "Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:01:27 -0800
Thanks, I'll take a look at that.
"Jonny" <spamyourself@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uWmHv4HIGHA.344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23qUNBR9HGHA.1124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Thank you all for your thoughts. I love the discussions that come up.
> >
> > I did want to at least consider the newer technology. After input from
> > this
> > group and an inquiry to Seagate I've decided that if I don't have a need
> > for
> > it, I can leave the RAID setup alone. I began questioning the subject
> > when
> > Micron (MPC) told me that I could not get a Millennia desktop that was
NOT
> > RAID. (I would have to go to their ClientPro, which offered way less in
> > options.) As it turns out, their "Professional" Millennia is offered in
> > non-RAID, and this will probably be my choice. My main priority is
> > reliability. I'll get my own increase in speed by going from a 733MHz
to
> > a
> > 3.2G! It's amazing how tempting it can be to unnecessarily complicate
my
> > computing experience just for the knowledge that I have the latest
> > technology.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ellen Hall
> >
> > "Glen" <gp2002hwREMOVEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:%23IlGW55HGHA.1728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> I'm using two 250GB serial 150 drives in RAID 0 and can tell you it is
> > fast.
> >> I keep backups to another drive so I'm not too worried about corrupt
> >> data.
> >> Do it like me and have two drives in RAID 0 and a third drive for
backups
> >> nad you are protected agains most things.
> >>
> >> Glen P
> >>
> >>
> >> "Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:e$R6fLuHGHA.3036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > I'm looking at buying a new XP computer. I have been researching
> > whether
> >> > to
> >> > choose a RAID setup or a non-RAID. The RAID comes with an
"Integrated
> >> > Serial ATA RAID controller." Of the RAID, RAID 0 seems like the
> >> > logical
> >> > choice (I have no special data protection needs to warrant the
> >> > mirroring
> >> > of
> >> > RAID 1, the other choice). Getting the performance boost sounds
great.
> >> > What I'm considering, though, is that I may be just fine with the
older
> >> > SATA-type setup that I have in my 98SE computer. I back up my data.
> >> >
> >> > If I choose the non-RAID configuration, will I be "behind the times"
as
> >> > far
> >> > a technology goes? Is there a compelling reason to consider the RAID
> >> > performance, where data recover may be more challenging if there's a
> >> > problem?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for any thoughts!
> >> > Ellen Hall
> >> >
>
>
> Along with the RAID 1 offering, they also provide a ghost (image) backup
> system to a hidden partition. This isn't a bad idea at all. Especially
if
> you could get without the RAID.
>
> ---------------
> Jonny
>
>
.
- References:
- RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Ellen Hall
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Glen
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Ellen Hall
- Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- From: Jonny
- RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Prev by Date: Re: free download manager
- Next by Date: Re: CD-ROM directory
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID vs. non-RAID?
- Next by thread: Can't install activesync 4.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|