Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.comp.hardware
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2008, 12:08 PM
Dan K.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default (ping) Kony

I posted about going from a raid 1 to a raid 0. I finally ended up with a a
no raid and did a reinstall of the OS.

It was great that I had all my info on the second disk still in there.. It
was so easy to recover everything and my system is running better then ever.

I just wanted to thank you for all the information that you gave me .. I
think I have a lot better understanding .

Everything you told me was right on the money.

Thank you so much for all the info. I didnt do so bad for a senior old man
huh?

One last question.. Would there be any advantage setting it up as a Raid 0
now. I dont think I would be able to tell the difference in any speed.

Thanks again Kony, great information on the money.

Dan



Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2008, 05:44 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: (ping) Kony

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:08:17 -0400, "Dan K."
<dkenn@anywhere.com> wrote:

>I posted about going from a raid 1 to a raid 0. I finally ended up with a a
>no raid and did a reinstall of the OS.
>
>It was great that I had all my info on the second disk still in there.. It
>was so easy to recover everything and my system is running better then ever.
>
>I just wanted to thank you for all the information that you gave me .. I
>think I have a lot better understanding .
>
>Everything you told me was right on the money.
>
> Thank you so much for all the info. I didnt do so bad for a senior old man
>huh?


>
> One last question.. Would there be any advantage setting it up as a Raid 0
>now. I dont think I would be able to tell the difference in any speed.
>
> Thanks again Kony, great information on the money.
>
>Dan
>



In some situations RAID0 would be faster, primarily working
with large files. In more typical generic PC/windows uses
the performance difference isn't much. In some situations
where you have multiple revisions of a file you can achieve
a performance boost by instead having one drive hold the
source file and the other be the destination after it's
edited/processed/etc to output. Leaving the two drives
separate you can also divide up I/O between OS,
applications, pagefile, temp files or application scratch
space... it really depends on how you use the system which
strategy works best and which files to put on which drive.

Since RAID0 has at least double the risk of data loss I
would not recommend it unless you're regularly making
backups of the data, which of course we should all do anyway
but maybe twice as often since there's twice the risk. I
don't recall now if your RAID was from a motherboard
integrated controller or an add-on PCI or PCIe card.
Personally I don't like setting up an array that depends on
the motherboard (plus CPU, memory, etc) all working, I find
motherboards to be the 2nd most common source of failure in
a system after PSU, maybe fans would be first if counting
sub-components but several parts might have failure-prone
fans.

Unless it were a RAID1 array where any other controller can
get the data off, for others I would prefer a PCI/PCIe card
so the set of drives plus card can be transferred to another
system should the need ever arise. Otherwise you might face
a situation where you have to buy a compatible motherboard
again, though from a cost:benefit standpoint if it didn't
fail soon it might be more appealing to do an upgrade if the
board were to ever fail, especially since older generations
of hardware tend to be slim pickin's, most of the lowest
priced sellers sell out of decent gear within a year or two
leaving only the lower quality boards until they're so old
that the remaining stock ends up at surplus 'sites.

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2008, 11:06 PM
Dan K.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: (ping) Kony






> In some situations RAID0 would be faster, primarily working
> with large files. In more typical generic PC/windows uses
> the performance difference isn't much. In some situations
> where you have multiple revisions of a file you can achieve
> a performance boost by instead having one drive hold the
> source file and the other be the destination after it's
> edited/processed/etc to output. Leaving the two drives
> separate you can also divide up I/O between OS,
> applications, pagefile, temp files or application scratch
> space... it really depends on how you use the system which
> strategy works best and which files to put on which drive.
>
> Since RAID0 has at least double the risk of data loss I
> would not recommend it unless you're regularly making
> backups of the data, which of course we should all do anyway
> but maybe twice as often since there's twice the risk. I
> don't recall now if your RAID was from a motherboard
> integrated controller or an add-on PCI or PCIe card.
> Personally I don't like setting up an array that depends on
> the motherboard (plus CPU, memory, etc) all working, I find
> motherboards to be the 2nd most common source of failure in
> a system after PSU, maybe fans would be first if counting
> sub-components but several parts might have failure-prone
> fans.
>
> Unless it were a RAID1 array where any other controller can
> get the data off, for others I would prefer a PCI/PCIe card
> so the set of drives plus card can be transferred to another
> system should the need ever arise. Otherwise you might face
> a situation where you have to buy a compatible motherboard
> again, though from a cost:benefit standpoint if it didn't
> fail soon it might be more appealing to do an upgrade if the
> board were to ever fail, especially since older generations
> of hardware tend to be slim pickin's, most of the lowest
> priced sellers sell out of decent gear within a year or two
> leaving only the lower quality boards until they're so old
> that the remaining stock ends up at surplus 'sites.



I think I will leave it the way it is now. Very happy with the setup. You
should be a teacher

Thanks again

Dan.



Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High ping on LAN games Borgslayer Troubleshooting 9 11-04-2007 09:34 PM
Re: High ping on LAN games Bob Willard alt.internet.wireless 0 10-30-2007 11:47 AM
WiFi ping times fluctuating Mark alt.internet.wireless 24 08-09-2007 07:46 PM
memory question (ping kony?) Uncle Vinnie alt.comp.hardware 0 12-10-2006 07:24 PM
Ping replies once but never again??? scarfies Troubleshooting 4 01-09-2005 09:16 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45