PLEASE tell me which Hard Drive Config is better.

[-Omen-]

Ok, which will be a better setup:

2x ATA100 7200rpm 2mb cache drives in a striped Raid 0
or 1 ATA133 7200rpm 8mb cache drive alone?

Which is better, faster, all that and why?
Thanks very much!

 

[beatle]

Better? I'd take the single drive any day. I value my data, and when you stripe 2 drives in raid 0, you double the likelihood of a failure. I ran 2 60GXPs in raid 0 for a couple months until one blew up. I didn't notice much of a decrease in real world performance when I switched to one drive.

 

[mechBgon]

Using the two drives in the normal fashion may be faster than either a single drive or a RAID0, too. If your apps need to pull data, work on it, and then store it, well, a RAID0 can't read and write at the same time, but two separate drives can. I seem to recall that WindowsNT, 2000 or XP will do an impromptu software RAID0 pagefile if you assign space on more than one drive for pagefile purposes, too... can anyone confirm/deny that?

 

[-Omen-]

mech does that mean than that 2x ATA100 7200rpm 2mb cache drives running regular are better than 1 ATA133 7200rpm 8mb cache?

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: -Omen-
mech does that mean than that 2x ATA100 7200rpm 2mb cache drives running regular are better than 1 ATA133 7200rpm 8mb cache?

I don't know about that but I would rather run a single 7200rpm 8mb drive by itself. I run 3 40gb 7200rpm 2mb drives in raid 0 and honestly... AND a backup USB drive just in case one HD in my array takes a crap.

 

[-Omen-]

I don't know about that but I would rather run a single 7200rpm 8mb drive by itself. I run 3 40gb 7200rpm 2mb drives in raid 0 and honestly... AND a backup USB drive just in case one HD in my array takes a crap.

Why do you run them than? You could sell all three of those, get one big 8mb and still have money left over...