Author
|
Thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
singe
You Know You Want Some
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 27
|
|
|
Currently I have the retail x25-m 80G. It's set up for boot, swap, and normal installed software. And... a few select games. (supcom2 will be on there when I decide to buy)
Be sure you get a newer 34nm x25-m . The older 50nm ones (like the one found in the cheap dynamax kit) DO NOT and CAN NOT support trim. Not even with a firmware update.
I've got a pair of WD 160s in software raid0. I install games and other things I can loose there.
Then a single 1tb for stuff I actually want to keep. That gets exported via esata to a backup drive.
Font color: You might check and see... but I am fairly certian if you go software stripe, you can keep your trim support. But... windows can't boot to a software raided volume...
Also, I've been told that the only good raid is hardware raid. I dissagree. raid 0 or 1 requires no parity calculation. Almost zero impact. Raid5... that's where people get the idea for dedicated raid controlers. Even if you go raid5 now via software, for desktop apps the xor calcs done by the cpu are silly to worry about. If I had a single core atom, I would be worried. I wouldn't think about it with a quad though. A few of the better reasons for a good hardware raid controler is a fat cache (which may be questionable now that microsoft finally started caching IO in ram), if you have unnaturally heavy IO, irrespective of bandwith (Think oltp database), if you get extras like a blinkie light when a drive failure, or if you need to present a single physical drive to boot your os from (windows).
well that was a bit of a detour
anyways, I am very happy with the setup I have now, but when I do my upgrade, I think I am going to go for raid0 on 4 drives.
And about putting more drives in stripe - drive failure is not actually dependent on the number of drives in a raid0 setup. Just because you stripe a bunch of drives doesn't make any of them more likely to fail than a single drive. Having a raid0 array with 8 drives is not 8 times mroe likely to fail. In fact, I would argue that the drives might last LONGER because IO is spread across them, leading to less use. The scarry is how much data you have on those 8 drives. If they are small, you could easily loose as much data as you would on a big fat media drive.
|
Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|