Printable View
Hello all
For my personal culture (and if future for my computer) I wonder if the RAID0 a real advantage over a conventional hard drive fast.
For example, is it better to take 2-disc set 160 to 7200rpm raid 0 or a hard disk 320 fast for single pc, speaking of speed of reaction to the computer? (storage capacity will remain the same and the risk of crash will not change: whatever the case I lose my data)
Thank you all
RAID should be faster, but against, as there are 2 discs, there will be 2x more likely to crash ..
Ok, but the risk remains low crash is not it? SD never seen crash.
In making the report, gain speed crash risk, the best is still RAID 0 then?
My samsung just spit last week .
Hard drive level is fairly reliable (in general) but there is never a safe from a blow (especially in summer).
I had a PC before (office) who died so fast that it cut into the hard drive before (I'm not care technician) rod reading / writing either store. suddenly I spend 3 or 4 DD almost 6 months (clusters that as spread).
it depends on what Zenon spoke:
for RAID 0: It increases the speed. Each file is fragmented between the 2 drives. It was indeed a significant increase in performance.
PROBLEM> you lose a disk, you lose everything. Go, Also, if you have 2 DD 160 GB
The best in laptops are Seagate,
For RAID0 is 160x2 you found with 320 GB all ...
The Raid 1 or against you can not find that 160 GB and 320 GB, it uses more CPU process ... (for storage 1 on the raid was therefore agree)
A view of the proposed config, I would say that HP are those who fared best
Ok
So who is right, is what the raid 0 160 gives 320 total or 160 only?
I think it is also expensive, not to buy 2 DD by DD RAID0 only 1 of 320 in 7200 rpm?
Basically, I'll put it simply, that you advise me because I want to run games well greedy