An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
If you got 2 of those 160GB drives you mentioned, (in RAID-0) you would have about the same performance, but more chance for failure.
Please, stop with the RAID-0 insanity. Yes, it might increase performance by around 20-30% in content creation and bootup (most of the bootup gains are lost when the RAID BIOS runs anyway), but it increases system complexity, reduces reliability, makes recovery and installation more complicated, and really doesn't do anything for office productivity and gaming storage performance. RAID-0 is barely worth its drawbacks in situations where it scales well like workstation/content creation applications. It is hardly worth it for desktop users and gamers. Gamers are better off allocating their dollars to a better video card, faster CPU, or more RAM before going to RAID-0.
I do not agree with those reviews. RAID-0 does help, and it is amazing the difference when you are handling large files such as DV video, DVD's and several gigs of images.
Loading games is about 25-40% faster.
Un-raring a 3GB file takes about 1/2 the time.
Opening Photoshop or Premier takes ~50% less time.
I have twice the storage.
I consider those to be more than enough motovation to go RAID-0.
Do yourself a favor and go through all of those before replying. Don't just skim throught it either. Try to understand WHY RAID-0 does not offer a performance increase (in most situations).
Quote:
I have twice the storage.
RAID-0 does not increase the amount of space you have. If you weren't running RAID-0 you would have the same amount of space so this is irrelevent.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
RAID-0 does not improve buffer implementation or localized seek performance, the dominant factors in desktop productivity and gaming storage performance. Yes running RAID-0 will substantially improve scores in synthetic benchmarks, and is useful for content creation scratch arrays and in disk to disk backup, but running RAID-0 will not significantly improve desktop storage performance. For gamers (remember that this is primarily a gamer board) RAID-0 actually can negatively impact system responsiveness.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
RAID-0 is another way to satisfy the need for higher benchmark scores. It's like people who want \"performance RAM\" because of the better memory timings. They increase FPS.... or something redundant like that. It's also quite analagous to 64-bit technology, which doesn't offer a great performance boost and often detracts from performance.
...handling large files such as DV video, DVD's and several gigs of images.
I do these sorts of things a lot, and it is worthwhile to me to have RAID0.
As far as the double storage, YES, I do have double the capacity on that drive. If I have 2 identical drives, I see NO reason to not put them in RAID if I already have a controller.
If you got 2 of those 160GB drives you mentioned, (in RAID-0) you would have about the same performance
Also, how can you say \"I do not agree with those reviews.\" when those reviews say in typical desktop applications the performance gain would be negligible and that, in cases where the sutained transfer rate is the limiting factor, it can increase performance. What is it that you don't agree with?
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
