Sata I vs Sata II

[foodfightr]

SATA 2 drives transfer 3.0GBs of data, would that be the same as having two SATA 1 drives 1.5GBs in a RAID 0 array?

Assume RAID 0 had no negative impacts. (I.E.: Potentially unstable, etc.) Based on performance only how would these two configurations vary?

 

[Ronin]

SATA II single drives don't show much, if any, improvement over SATA I. RAID 0 only show better numbers in sustained data transfers. Either way, a RAID 0 setup in normal everyday use is worthless, and more costly than it needs to be. Stick with a single drive.

 

[foodfightr]

Originally posted by: Ronin
SATA II single drives don't show much, if any, improvement over SATA I. RAID 0 only show better numbers in sustained data transfers. Either way, a RAID 0 setup in normal everyday use is worthless, and more costly than it needs to be. Stick with a single drive.

Still didn't answer my first question.

Also, what would be a "sustained data transfer?"

 

[TankGuys]

Originally posted by: foodfightr
SATA 2 drives transfer 3.0GBs of data, would that be the same as having two SATA 1 drives 1.5GBs in a RAID 0 array?

No.

Originally posted by: foodfightr
Assume RAID 0 had no negative impacts. (I.E.: Potentially unstable, etc.) Based on performance only how would these two configurations vary?

Not much difference.
Performance increase of SATA II = Very little.
Performance increase of RAID 0 = Very little.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: foodfightr

Originally posted by: Ronin
SATA II single drives don't show much, if any, improvement over SATA I. RAID 0 only show better numbers in sustained data transfers. Either way, a RAID 0 setup in normal everyday use is worthless, and more costly than it needs to be. Stick with a single drive.

Still didn't answer my first question.

Also, what would be a "sustained data transfer?"

The answer is no, it wouldn't be the same.

Sustained data transfer is constant moving of files (larger ones, generally speaking).