My current system is an Athlon 1.4GHz with 1 80GB single drive and 2 40's in RAID0. The motherboard is an Iwill KK266-R and I won't get another. I hope your mobo doesn't use the Megaraid controller, because it has been a source of problems for me. My belief now is that, if I really need RAID, I will get a REAL RAID card such as the Adaptec 2400. I'll do that once my image files get too big for 1 drive, and I'll probably run RAID5.
Initially, I had the RAID set up as the boot drive and had numerous corruptions and data loss. The computer without warning wouldn't boot. I'd have to fully restore. I've since made the 80GB the boot drive and (knock wood) this hasn't happened since. Incidentally, the 80 is not even on the RAID side of the mobo. It's in one of the standard IDE ports. The only option the megaRAID gives you to run a single disk is to make it a 1 disk stripe. That seems oxymoronic to me. I've read that the Highpoint controllers have a Just Plain Old Disk setting for that purpose. Oh, BTW, the RAID on my system doesn't bench any faster, and in some cases slower, than the 80. I'm using Quantum Fireballs in the RAID (the 80 is a Maxtor), and I read after the fact that they don't perform well in RAID0. One of the PC mags recently did an exhaustive test and concluded that RAID 0 is faster on writes, but slower on reads. For video editing, that extra write speed would be important. For stills, much less so. I'm planning on rearranging my system to get rid of the RAID. I plan to make one 40 the boot drive with OS, games, and maybe secondary backup partitions. The 80 would handle main apps and data partitions. The other 40 would be entirely for compressed backups. Lloyd -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:Computer size: RAID > > To carry disk performance to the max, go with > > a striped SCSI array of 15000 RPM drives! > > Very expensive, though. Also, one thing tends to lead to another: If > you use 15000 RPM drives, you soon have to start worrying about > keeping the whole machine from melting down in its own heat. > I'm getting a system with 1.5 GB of RAM and 2 80MB 7200 drives (CPU: Athlon 1800+). Aside from possible video-editing, would there be a reason to set the drives up as RAID-0 (which is supported on the motherboard I'm using so doesn't add to the cost). Opening and saving 128MB files might be faster but would PS in general be faster given that I assume there would be little need to go to the scratch disk with that much RAM. Trying to figure out whether any increased performance would be worth the loss of data if one of the drives goes. On my current system I use the second disk for daily incremental back-ups (without full mirroring) which would be useless with the level 0 RAID. How, also, does RAID interact with PS's desire for partitions? As for any future large video editing project it might just be better to dedicate a couple of drives in RAID to the editing at that point. Comments on my reasoning on this (or lack of it)? -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
