In practice, this is often not the case, due to lack of sophisticated controllers in common systems.Īs for the failure rate, it actually depends on the length of time that it takes to replace a failed drive in a RAID 1 setup. RAID 1 can, in theory, match RAID 0 in read speed. The failure rate should be 100 x less than the RAID 0 setup. RAID 1 gives you double speed in reading and single in writing. And if you're looking for speed, you're probably not keeping your drives for five years anyway.
There are plenty of RAID 0 setups that are alive and kicking up until they are taken out of service. If you assert that every RAID 0 array dies eventually, it must only be because every hard disk dies eventually. It just makes you lose twice as much data. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yeah. That way you won't loose much data when (not if) it goes down. Raid is not that big a bonus for most people, it really only helps when you are doing specific tasks (eg streaming video etc) were speed is really really important, for the majority of uses non-RAID solutions can and will be less of a headache to implement and maintain.
The speed difference between the 133 and 100 is not that significant though, so you may not see a great speed increase.
It depends on the card ime, but in theory yes it can access the drive at ATA133 speeds.
THE RAID GIF UPGRADE
will a RAID card allow my mobo to read a ata133 drive at 133mb/s? i think this raid solution will be best for me, but if i go with the 2 80's then a 160, it will be best to upgrade over time. Forgot to ask.say i want to run a RAID system, i want to combine linearly the 2 40gb drives and have that vitual device back up to the 80gb.or what i also might want to do is get 2 80gb, and later buy a 160 for back up.now i want to get ata133 drives.but the asus board i want (A7M266-D) only has small (forgot #) /66/100.
0 kommentar(er)
