• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is This A Typo?

I just tested my Maxtor SATAs with HD Tach, and it says that they are transferring at 114.8MBs. Admittedly, that not much better than 100MBs, but then one of my drives is sick.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I just tested my Maxtor SATAs with HD Tach, and it says that they are transferring at 114.8MBs. Admittedly, that not much better than 100MBs, but then one of my drives is sick.
Click to expand...

You have RAID, which uses two separate drives not one. Don't worry about the transfer speed of those drives..its not going to limit you
 
I realize that I'm rather thick headed about some things, but since it's a raid 1 array, it would seem like they array is only as strong as it's weakest link, and the HD Tach rating would be higher, if the array were healthy. In any case, I'm still wondering if there is any real difference between SATA l drives...in terms of transfer speeds.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I realize that I'm rather thick headed about some things, but since it's a raid 1 array, it would seem like they array is only as strong as it's weakest link, and the HD Tach rating would be higher, if the array were healthy. In any case, I'm still wondering if there is any real difference between SATA l drives...in terms of transfer speeds.
Click to expand...

There is but it is not dependent on the speed of the connection. To see the transfer rate you will have to look at reviews
 
One other point that I have been wondering about, is that the drive that I'm replacing is 80GB, but with prices being what they are, I'm looking at 160GB. Since I can't afford to replace both drives at the same time, I'm thinking about dividing the 160GB so that the first partition is equal to the old drive, and using the remainder for other partitions. Is there any reason that this would not work?
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
One other point that I have been wondering about, is that the drive that I'm replacing is 80GB, but with prices being what they are, I'm looking at 160GB. Since I can't afford to replace both drives at the same time, I'm thinking about dividing the 160GB so that the first partition is equal to the old drive, and using the remainder for other partitions. Is there any reason that this would not work?
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be done, at least, the hardware in my computer won't do it.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
One other point that I have been wondering about, is that the drive that I'm replacing is 80GB, but with prices being what they are, I'm looking at 160GB. Since I can't afford to replace both drives at the same time, I'm thinking about dividing the 160GB so that the first partition is equal to the old drive, and using the remainder for other partitions. Is there any reason that this would not work?
Click to expand...

From my experience, RAID chips work at the hardware level, not the logic level, so you couldn't tell it to view a partition on a physical disk. Also, if you do end up doing it, you'll effectively lose the extra 80GB as the RAID tool should render it useless as long as you use the array.
 
Intel Matrix can do taht, e.g. multiple RAID levels (0 and 1) on a 2 drive array but you need an Intel mainboard to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top