My apologies.  Before the post I checked with a friend who used
to work at Symbios.  I guess we were both confused.

The issue of performance in your computer is still at hand,
however.  IF the RAID system is implemented in hardware
(as with the host adapter/disk controller setup or some
other setup that uses a hardware interface such as a
USB) then I see the possibility for improved performance.
However, if the system is implemented in software, then
I wonder how the performance improvement is realized?

For example, can software read from two isa disks on
the same cable faster than the operating system can read
 from one?  Can software read from two isa disks on
different cables ("simultaneously") faster than the o.s.
can read from one?  If the answer is "yes" the next
question is, is the speed gained enough to offset the
additional overhead of the program itself?

If the goal is reliability, then you are willing to sacrifice
speed for a little savings in dollars.  But, I question
whether you can see a speed performance.  Have
you seen benchmarks??

Dean Kukral  [log in to unmask]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Cranny" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [PCBUILD] RAID 0?


> You've got me on the new meaning, but I was correct when reffereing to
RAID
> 0 being striped and 1 being mirrored.

Originally in the papers of the RAID researchers, it did mean
"Redundent Array of INEXPENSIVE Disks."  I suspect that
as industry started to implement the theory as a product, they
changed the name to "Independent" so that people would not
ridicule the high prices that they charged for their products.  This
is just a guess.... :)


>
> taken from whatis.techtarget.com
>
> a.. RAID-0. This technique has striping but no redundancy of data. It
offers
> the best performance but no fault-tolerance.
> b.. RAID-1. This type is also known as disk mirroring and consists of at
> least two drives that duplicate the storage of data. There is no striping.
> Read performance is improved since either disk can be read at the same
time.
> Write performance is the same as for single disk storage. RAID-1 provides
> the best performance and the best fault-tolerance in a multi-user system.
>
> Speed is what I'm after, and RAID-0 is the answer.  Each drive is only
> writing/reading half the data, and at the same time.  Utopia would be 4
> drives in RAID 1+0, but that's getting silly budget wise.  With weekly
> backups on cd, I don't really need the redundancy anyways.
>
> The full page can be found at
> http://whatis.techtarget.com/WhatIs_Definition_Page/0,4152,214332,00.html
>
> Cheers.
>

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html