If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage or
120 GB?

"Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage or
>120 GB?
>
240

Ed Jay (remove M to respond)

"Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bo549t$16qdgg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage or
> 120 GB?
>

RAID 0 is interleaving, it will split the data to the two physical drives,
your 2 drives will show up as (1) 240GB or so.

RAID 1 would be redundancy, then your 2 physical drives, show up as (1)
120GB

"Philip Callan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:aOopb.273919$6C4.14450@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bo549t$16qdgg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage
or
> > 120 GB?
> >
>
> RAID 0 is interleaving, it will split the data to the two physical drives,
> your 2 drives will show up as (1) 240GB or so.
>
> RAID 1 would be redundancy, then your 2 physical drives, show up as (1)
> 120GB

Is this easy to set up? What if I already have data on one of the discs that
I can't temporarily store anywhere else?

Ah - the irony.

In answer to your most recent question...it's deliciously fitting that the
ideal response happens to be EXACTLY the response YOU posted, for the fellow
having BIOS trouble. But - unlike when you delivered it yesterday, I will
avoid the crudity of spelling it out:

"You're f***ed."

Ron

"Ron" <pls-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AJtpb.4570$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ah - the irony.
>
> In answer to your most recent question...it's deliciously fitting that the
> ideal response happens to be EXACTLY the response YOU posted, for the
fellow
> having BIOS trouble. But - unlike when you delivered it yesterday, I
will
> avoid the crudity of spelling it out:
>
> "You're f***ed."

Actually I have a 20 GB HD which should just be enough, so I just un-****ed
myself.

Still, I think I'll just go with the standard master/slave IDE setup. I
don't need more than 50 mb/sec transfer rates.

"Ed Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage
or
> >120 GB?
> >
> 240
>
> Ed Jay (remove M to respond)

Is Raid 0 going to be much quicker than two separate drives?

"Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:boapt3$1aet30$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Ed Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > >If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage
> or
> > >120 GB?
> > >
> > 240
> >
> > Ed Jay (remove M to respond)
>
> Is Raid 0 going to be much quicker than two separate drives?

That's the idea. Techincally it should be 2x as fast but real world
perforamance is more like 1.5.

You get a 240 gig drive that is approximately twice as fast as the
individual 120 gig drives, and somewhat less reliable (if either drive
fails (completely), you lose EVERYTHING).


Darkfalz wrote:

> If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage or
> 120 GB?
>
>

It's easy to setup but you need to start with two blank drives (or
drives on which all existing data will be lost, anyway).

You can't start with a drive that has data on it to be retained.


Darkfalz wrote:

> "Philip Callan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:aOopb.273919$6C4.14450@pd7tw1no...
>
>>"Darkfalz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:bo549t$16qdgg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>If I RAID 0 two identical 120 GB hard disks, do I get 240 GB of storage
>
> or
>
>>>120 GB?
>>>
>>
>>RAID 0 is interleaving, it will split the data to the two physical drives,
>>your 2 drives will show up as (1) 240GB or so.
>>
>>RAID 1 would be redundancy, then your 2 physical drives, show up as (1)
>>120GB
>
>
> Is this easy to set up? What if I already have data on one of the discs that
> I can't temporarily store anywhere else?
>
>