"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:FE60DDFC-D553-42FC-8427-AB16E212E3AD@microsoft.com...[color=blue][color=green]
>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes no
>> difference.
>> More idiots[/color]
>
> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>[/color]

What drive do you have, out of interest?

As 5.9 is the current maximum, a benchmark using HDTach would be a better
way to score performance.

ss.

"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:FE60DDFC-D553-42FC-8427-AB16E212E3AD@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> news:eXKQ2TYgIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes no
>> difference.
>> More idiots[/color]
>
> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>
>[/color]


great ! ...what the fulk that has to do with anything...I don't know

"Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives became one
> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes sense
> since
> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>
> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My score
> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.[/color]


I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives in
RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and would make
more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.

Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you have
to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice the
chance of losing your data.

Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair of
disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still (quite)
safe.

ss.

"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
news:%231kywqYgIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes
>>> no difference.
>>> More idiots[/color]
>>
>> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>>[/color]
>
> great ! ...what the fulk that has to do with anything...I don't know[/color]

Of course you do not know. You are a complete idiot. It's relevant to
anybody with even half a brain.

ss.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:15:01 -0800, Seidell23231
<Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hey ALL,
>
> I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard about
> the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did not
> apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the HD's
> in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use Office
> 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input! Gunny[/color]



RAID0 and RAID1 are two completely different things.

RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it.

I no longer use RAID0 on this computer, but I used to. Since getting
rid of it, I am able to discern no loss of performance.

RAID1 is mirroring. When you use RAID1, every file is written to each
drive on the RAID array. So, yes, with a two-drive RAID1 array, the
result is that you have half of the amount of storage you thought you
had.

Although some people think of RAID1 as a backup technique, that's
*not* what it is. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of
the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations
(almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtime
can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive
fails the other takes over seamlessly.

Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
in place.

As far as I'm concerned, neither RAID01 nor RAID2 is appropriate for
home users.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

RAID is generally used as a semi-backup and/or fail-safe arrangement.
If one of the drives fails, the other can still be used until the other is
replaced.
The theory is no data loss.
I have had both drives fail or get corrupted.
Unless you have a real reason to use RAID, I don't see the point.
It does not enhance performance.
I always have a different backup plan in place, so I am not terribly worried
about drive failure/data loss.

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!
[email]CarGodZeroOne********.com[/email]
Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
"Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:47E5487A-D208-41E0-B5AB-ECFB92312A30@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Hey ALL,
>
> I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard
> about
> the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did
> not
> apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the
> HD's
> in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use
> Office
> 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input!
> Gunny[/color]

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:e9GAXqYgIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
> news:FE60DDFC-D553-42FC-8427-AB16E212E3AD@microsoft.com...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes
>>> no difference.
>>> More idiots[/color]
>>
>> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>>[/color]
>
> What drive do you have, out of interest?[/color]

Hitachi 500 GB SATA 2 drive with 16 MB cache. Actually I have 3 of them.
Running 64 bit Ultimate, 4 GB RAM, Core 2 Quad.

"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
news:%231kywqYgIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
> news:FE60DDFC-D553-42FC-8427-AB16E212E3AD@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
>> news:eXKQ2TYgIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes
>>> no difference.
>>> More idiots[/color]
>>
>> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>
> great ! ...what the fulk that has to do with anything...I don't know[/color]

Just stating a fact.

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives became
>> one
>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes sense
>> since
>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>
>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My score
>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.[/color]
>
>
> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives in
> RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and would make
> more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
>
> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
> the chance of losing your data.
>
> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair
> of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still
> (quite) safe.
>
> ss.
>[/color]


How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics

"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:13t6icroclfkj09@news.supernews.com...[color=blue]
> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> news:%231kywqYgIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
>> news:FE60DDFC-D553-42FC-8427-AB16E212E3AD@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
>>> news:eXKQ2TYgIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>>>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes
>>>> no difference.
>>>> More idiots
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> great ! ...what the fulk that has to do with anything...I don't know[/color]
>
> Just stating a fact.[/color]

+1

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:%23uGqIvYgIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> news:%231kywqYgIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> RAID 0 took my perf score from 5.3 to 5.9.
>>>> Take from that what you will ... the numbskulls here will say it makes
>>>> no difference.
>>>> More idiots
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I already have a 5.9 on my disk score without RAID.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> great ! ...what the fulk that has to do with anything...I don't know[/color]
>
> Of course you do not know. You are a complete idiot. It's relevant to
> anybody with even half a brain.
>
> ss.
>[/color]

-1

forty-nine wrote:[color=blue]
> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:e0dBttYgIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message news:3283E73F-B77D-43E7-A783-D66323D4A4F7@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Dave, I have the RAID 0 implemented and the 2 350GB hard drives
>>> became one
>>> 350GB hard drive. The RAID 0 consumed the 2nd, which kinda makes
>>> sense since
>>> in theory the RAID is writing to both at the same time, correct?
>>>
>>> I am at the point of, is it worth losing the 350GB hard drive? My score
>>> went from 5.3 to 5.4, not that much justification.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I think you might have made a RAID-1 array there. Two 350GB drives in
>> RAID-0 would leave you with a 700GB drive seen in Computer, and would
>> make more of a difference on the WEI benchmarking score.
>>
>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
>> you have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is
>> twice the chance of losing your data.
>>
>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
>> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is
>> still (quite) safe.
>>
>> ss.
>>[/color]
>
>
> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]

From Ken Blake's post that 49 obviously didn't read:

"RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it."

Alias

From: "VistaMan" <VistaMan@discussions.microsoft.com>

| Please tell me why a write would be slower? Thats make no sense at all, two
| drives writting half the data simultaneously is definitly faster then one. I
| Run a RAID 0 and I also have a 5.9 w/ two WD 150GB's. Big difference in
| performance, everyone who says it doesnt has never run it before.
|

Because of the way RAID works. Data can be obtained from two places at one time. However
it can only be written once and then mirrored.

Look on the Internet, you'll find plenty of data on RAID.

--
Dave
[url]http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html[/url]
Multi-AV - [url]http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp[/url]

"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
>> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
>> the chance of losing your data.
>>
>> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same pair
>> of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition is still
>> (quite) safe.
>>
>> ss.
>>[/color]
>
>
> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?[/color]


He didn't say "twice the chance of a failing HD", he said twice the chance
of losing your data. Which is true with RAID0, since you have more failure
points.

Yes, if you have 2 houses, your chances of a house you own catching fire has
gone up. Maybe not double, but certainly higher. Consider if you owned
every house in the US. Your odds are now 100% that a house you own will
catch fire.
[color=blue]
> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]

Indeed.

"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so you
>> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is twice
>> the chance of losing your data.
>>[/color]
> How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?[/color]

LOL! DUH!!

You have two disks, right? Twice the chance of failure. Understand?

With RAID-0, if one disk fails in the array, you still lose data from all
other drives in the array. So with two disks, you have twice the risk.
With three disks, triple the risk, and so on.
[color=blue]
> If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching fire ?
> Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics[/color]

ROFL! Why don't you just tattoo 'IDIOT' on your forehead?

Here:

[url]http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GZEZ_en-GBGB248GB248&q=RAID+0+%22twice+the+%28chance+OR+risk%29%22[/url]

ss.