RAID BABY!!!

[roselan]

I plan to build a new game system soon. I want for performance for performance. I mean it is not like I will play on it, I have a ps2 for that .

I hesitate between two disks in raid 0, or 3 disk with no raid (1 for system/programs, 1 little but fast (10/15k) dedicated to virtual memory alone, 1 big and bulky (docs... not to say divx).

I believe the second architecture to be more performant... what da ya think?

 

[trueimage]

Originally posted by: roselan
I plan to build a new game system soon. I want for performance for performance. I mean it is not like I will play on it, I have a ps2 for that .

I hesitate between two disks in raid 0, or 3 disk with no raid (1 for system/programs, 1 little but fast (10/15k) dedicated to virtual memory alone, 1 big and bulky (docs... not to say divx).

I believe the second architecture to be more performant... what da ya think?

 

[nweaver]

Raid 5 is not a backup solution, it is an uptime thing (it' faster to rebuild the disks then to rebuild and apply a backup). Also, if you delete something, and then change your mind, you can restore from backup, but you can't restore from your Raid array.

S/W raid isn't too bad on a decent system, I run a raid 1 SW on my debian box, only it' s a 20 gig drive raided with a 20 gig partition on a 40 gig drive

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Raid 5 is not a backup solution, it is an uptime thing (it' faster to rebuild the disks then to rebuild and apply a backup). Also, if you delete something, and then change your mind, you can restore from backup, but you can't restore from your Raid array.

Precisely. By having a 2+1 with a hot swap spare, I can put off back-ups quite awhile.

 

[Chacranajxy]

So wait, it's overall not worth it for a gamer to use a SATA RAID array and instead go with a single drive?