on the new system. So, I'm willing to adapt my thinking if it's a waste of effort to do a RAID-0. Would a Raid-3, or Raid-1 setup be beneficial?
Assuming real hardware control, a RAID-1 won't impose additional load, but (aside from the improved performance of a higher quality caching disk controller) won't give you better performance. RAID-0, as you said, will give you better performance by splitting up the writes. In my opinion, there are really only 2 RAID levels - 1 and 5. 0 is not really raid, because it is not Redundant. It's just multiple drives.
1 is to be used for fewer than 3 drives, because 5 cannot be done with fewer than 3 drives. You will see minimal performance difference because of the fact that it's basically just writing to one drive.
5 is to be used for 3 or more. You will see performance increases because of the striping.
Another option that I came across was the 3ware AcceleATA controlers (I think that's what they're called). It's basically a 4 channel IDE controller that works like SCSI - the drives are controlled completely by the card, not by the host system. So, if RAID is not the answer, a good HDD controller might be.
Additionally, make sure you're on 1 drive per bus. Actual working throughput can almost double if there isn't any bus contention.
--
I have learned much more about Microsoft by using the Linux operating
system than I ever would have done by using Windows.
-- Neal Stephenson, In The Beginning Was The Command Line
~~ Matt Caron ~~
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
