-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We Live For The One We Die For The One wrote:
|
| Not started but just want to give raid a try, Raid 0 seems to be the
| safest.
|
RAID 0 is not the safest, RAID 0 has *NO* redundancy, so one drive
fails, IT ALL GOES.
| Should i bother just want a faster system for coping files and
| encoding ext.
No.
I hate to seem abrupt, but one of the unfortunate side effects of
hardware manufacters to implement RAID on their boards has been to turn
everyone into zombies that 'HAS' to run RAID for the 'geek' factor.
RAID is intended for machines that will have large demands placed upon
them (Databases, web servers, ftp servers etc etc etc)
Here's a nice flash demo that shows various implementations of RAID and
how they work:
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00_flash.html
Now, *I* do happen to transfer large amounts of MiniDV footage via
firewire, a rather disk intensive task, and my 7200rpm SATA is more than
adequate to keep up.
I've yet to find a task that *lagged* down my HD or transfer rates from
my SATA drive to my PATA drive.
And remember, running a RAID 0 will most assuredly wear your drive out
faster, as it will be doing a lot of seeking for 'pieces' instead of a
steady spin up, transfer of a file, and spin down.
Thats my opinion, welcome to keep or disregard as you may see fit.
Philip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFANkAF5sKixANmEMgRAnKVAJ9lnuk1W2RjsI9OBsySzKYPNHoOegCeO8JP
pdfFgkx+CL8K7O2D0RoJZbU=
=9HqI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
