• 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.

RAID 0 Striping vs. ATA100 or ATA133

R

Rilescat

Senior member
Hello All,

I am new to SCSI and RAID. Please educate me!!!

If I understand correctly, I need to have 3 hdds for RAID 0. RAID 0 has no backup abilities, but lets me use the full space of all three drives in a single volume. It is also supposed to be fast. But..........

Given that the RAID would use u160 SCSI drives, is a RAID 0 configuration really significantly faster than ATA100 RAID or 133 single drives, or just marginally? I know the RAID 0 setup will cost significantly more, but price is not an issue today.

Would I be just as well off running the SCSI drives independently, vs. the RAID?

Thanks for all info.

 


<< If I understand correctly, I need to have 3 hdds for RAID 0. RAID 0 has no backup abilities, but lets me use the full space of all three drives in a single volume. It is also supposed to be fast. But.......... >>


For RAID 0, all you need is two drives. The two drives are combined as one volume, and there is no fault tolerance. Meaning if one drive dies, your data is gone. You need at least 3 HDs to run RAID 5, which is stripping with parity.



<< Given that the RAID would use u160 SCSI drives, is a RAID 0 configuration really significantly faster than ATA100 RAID or 133 single drives, or just marginally? I know the RAID 0 setup will cost significantly more, but price is not an issue today. >>


Most people who use SCSI drives do not run RAID 0. RAID 0 started to become popular when motherboard started to offer IDE RAID. Most people who use SCSI HDs use them either in high end workstation, or servers that require fault tolerance, such as RAID 1 or RAID 5. Running RAID 0 gives you better read/write performance, and this mostly affects large file transfers. RAID 0 does not give you better seek times. In terms of SCSI vs. IDE, SCSI drives offer better seek times. So when you are talking about significantly faster, be sure you know what you are looking for.



<< Would I be just as well off running the SCSI drives independently, vs. the RAID? >>


Again, this depends on what you plan to do with your system. If you are going to be doing a lot of file transfer, and these files are huge, then you will benefit from a RAID 0 configuration. Otherwise, a IDE ATA100/133 drive will be enough for what you need.

If you want to get educated on IDE/SCSI, and RAID, go to:

StorageReview's Reference Section

Read up on the "Hard Disk Performance, Quality and Reliability" section, as well as the "Hard Disk Interfaces and Configuration" section.

Good luck!
 
another good source is upaboveit's posts at 2cpu.com
and he wrote a fairly good in layman's terms faq although i admit he hates adaptec he is quite helpful in the newcomers section
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top