JGAlmeida
Folding Colaborator
Boas.
Como ainda não vi nenhum post sobre o assunto achei melhor divulgar as seguintes reviews:
Conclusão; vou ter de comprar um WD raptor 74GB para meter SO e programas mantendo o de 160GB para a tralha, em vez de comprar outro de 160GB e meter em RAID-0.
Cumps.
Como ainda não vi nenhum post sobre o assunto achei melhor divulgar as seguintes reviews:
in http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
in http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_1.html
RAID helps multi-user applications far more than it does single-user scenarios. The enthusiasm of the power user community combined with the marketing apparatus of firms catering to such crowds has led to an extraordinarily erroneous belief that striping data across two or more drives yields significant performance benefits for the majority of non-server uses. This could not be farther from the truth! Non-server use, even in heavy multitasking situations, generates lower-depth, highly-localized access patterns where read-ahead and write-back strategies dominate. Theory has told those willing to listen that striping does not yield significant performance benefits. Some time ago, a controlled, empirical test backed what theory suggested. Doubts still lingered- irrationally, many believed that results would somehow be different if the array was based off of an SATA or SCSI interface. As shown above, the results are the same. Save your time, money and data- leave RAID for the servers!
Conclusão; vou ter de comprar um WD raptor 74GB para meter SO e programas mantendo o de 160GB para a tralha, em vez de comprar outro de 160GB e meter em RAID-0.
Cumps.