Once again...real world or benchmarks for raid0.....

[JEDIYoda]

I have seen almost all the website for or against raid0 configurations.

I have also heard all the slandering and name calling such as stoopid......idiot and such calling people who use raid0 morons and such....

I have also heard all the arguments for or againsts raid0......

So as to set some rules.....if I may before the thread starts.....

Rule #1 -- instead of asking people to back up there statements that raid0 doesn`t work or have any advantages I ask those who post to back up there posted argument.

Thus is you post that raid0 is for fools...please show us a website to back up what you are saying.

Or if you say raid0 rocks for gaming and other applications...back up what you are saying...

Rule#2 Please no name calling or such nonesense...Thank You!!

I have used both raid0 and other differning raid arrays....

my opinion of raid0 is probably with the minority.....

 

[Ricemarine]

Raid 0... All I can say... Even though it uses all the space, no redundancy is the killer. So... you have a higher chance of killing your array sooner than expected :laugh:

 

[ribbon13]

I wouldn't trade my striped set of M-Systems for anything.

 

[m3rcury]

I dont have raid anymore, but I used to have raid0. Friend of mine didn't think it was any good. So I told him to time his machine as he copied the 430mb quake 3 pak file. He said it took ~120 seconds. I tried the same on my system (2 striped drives), and it took ~60 seconds. We both had 7200rpm drives, both of similar specifications. He's never had one ugly thing to say about raid since that day.

 

[the Chase]

Well if we have a seperate thread to debate this I think someone that has raidable drives or using raid 0 now- they should run some benchies(load times for apps, boot up time, etc.) on both a single drive and a raid array!!

Also if they point out that you double your chance of losing all your info on the array they have to run 5 seperate raid 0 arrays until all 5 of them fail and let us know the length that each array "made it".

 

[Jeff7181]

I think it's one of those things you can't understand by just seeing numbers and charts. I also think the supposed increased chance of failure with no redundancy is a stupid argument against RAID 0. RAID 0 is obviously not intended to be used to secure data... it's for performance. It would be stupid not to back up sensative data anyway, no matter if you're using RAID 0, 1, 5 or nothing.

 

[IdaGno]

http://overclockers.com/articles1297/

http://overclockers.com/articles1297/index03.asp

 

[JEDIYoda]

So far so good!! all good comments and we do have a few websites posted to look through.


Just a note it was pointed out there are 2 sites to debate this issue...thats not actually true....

On this site i am looking for substantiated debate with proof of your remarks.

That is if you choose to debate.

If you choose to just comment in a civil way thatsd also cool.

Thus if you chose to join the debate it would be nice to see all comments accompanied my a URL or such....

None of this posting a comment and then asking people to prove you wrong...

Plz post your comment and then information supporting your statements...thx again!!