[fl0ppyd1scours3]

i'm happy about this site
and i love my RAID array of 0 datastripping i VOTE YES!

[Toshiro]

I don't.. to lazy to do it.. I may try it someday tho

[DKT27]

Same here Haantjuh.

[fl0ppyd1scours3]

well anyway its easy just tick it in your bios and put 2 hard drives 2 gether they don't have 2 be a perfect match. get driver! and sometimes windows will even have 1... anywho its makes the data goes almost twice as fast//

GOOD NEWS THOUGH there making harddrives NOW WITH "instant real time data access" but there really SMALL like 60 gig small

[myidisbb]

nope. i pay for the TB space. not half or combine different raids. if you are doing raids you really should have them all the same. my opinion anyway. buy a couple of them too for when you have to replace a bad HD. for by then your HD space type not on the market anymore

you mean ssd? ungodly over priced still.

[fl0ppyd1scours3]

ssd? short for what but yeah i do know what you mean///

iwas ttping bou like lets say hooking up 2 west dig sata 3 gig spped 1 is 320gb 1 is 200gb but there both sata 3g like i have on my sysytem works perfect NO erros and really fast...

[Night Owl]

No RAID for my notebook. Most notebooks don't have RAID arrays, do they?

[SokraT]

only servers should use RAID arrays because they perform storage-intensive tasks.i don't think a desktop will benefit from that.it can only make your life harder.

[rashad]

SokraT, on 31 October 2009 - 05:28 AM, said:

only servers should use RAID arrays because they perform storage-intensive tasks.i don't think a desktop will benefit from that.it can only make your life harder.

Workstations, Gaming PCs & Desktop Replacement Laptops utilize RAID arrays, RAID 0 is common in gaming and workstation machines, while in servers they use more sophisticated RAID setups.

[heath28m]

I had some really bad issues with an HP Media Center ( MX something ) that was struck.. through its cable connection.. by lightning.. with no surge protection...It came with 500 GB of storage; 2-250 GB WD..The main drive starting having issues, which manifested itself when I tried to re-install the system..( all of this was in the dark about the lightning strike and trying to figure it out, " I dunno its just like.. I dunno.. its crap.." ) IF they have bad problems, they always come out when you try to format and do a fresh install.. So I had to figure out for the first time.. how to switch over to the second drive..remove the RAID stripe or whatever it was.. and re-install/format the second drive .. Worked perfect after that..A system with dual core 3.2 GHz should be running smoothly.. ( had 2GB RAM, think 4 GB would have been better ).. giving some real problems before that.. But anyway this issue had to be addressed in the BIOS.. if I remember right.. The system was running faster afterward than it had when it was new according to the owner ( could have been a placebo effect though ).. and technically I wanted to get a 60 GB 7500+ RPM drive for the OS and programs and allow the storage for them on the 250 GB... would have been a little better IMO.. but this was cheaper...

But yeah I vote No...and Yes to SSD.. whenever that comes to be something reasonable.. ( not $2 - $3,000.00 a piece )

This post has been edited by heath28m: 31 October 2009 - 05:51 AM

[SokraT]

i'm not saying workstations and other are not using it.i'm saying they are not benefiting from it.or at least not cost and 'headache' effective.it is just like using crossfire on 20'' monitor.an overshoot.

[spootnack]

Hello.

I'm using a "Intel Matrix Raid" (Raid 0 and 1) with two HDD and it's roxxx !

++

[y3468]

I modded my xp sp3 to include the raid options available under server 2003...the dll's are the same on xp and server, the dll just needs to be hexed to change the os detection. It works wonderfully...I personally would only use software raid if you have a system with quite a bit extra processing power...otherwise, get yourself a nice ide/sata raid card and go for the best... RAID 10...no headaches...

[fl0ppyd1scours3]

yeah i know what u all are talikin bout thats why i made this pool...cause RAID hook ups vary so much and for me windows 7 doesn' even care i got 5.9 rating without raid b4 and now its still tesing 5.9 but i does move alot faster for programs.. but fuckin A sometimes i wonder even about that!?

lol i just did it really because i had 2 drives and didnt want a C: and D: drive on windows i want just a C: drive noly hdd drive SO BooM !! i think overall thats whats raid is good 4 if ya got drives laying anround and u want to combine them... not 4 speed!! BUT get on typeing may be well figure that RAID $hit out>>>>

[myidisbb]

those rating really dont mean much in the end. dont get hooked into the rating game

[fl0ppyd1scours3]

so those scores reflect nothing compared to OTHER disk benchmarking software ... windows is the only one i know plz share any other softaware beside windows 7!! TIA!

[Toshiro]

Question.. Would I get more FPS ingame when I have a RAID configuration?
The answer is yes, right... Cause the images load quicker to my display, or am I wrong?

[fl0ppyd1scours3]

Right like always Haantjuh no sarcasm intended here. AND no brown nosing either!

i think you post very well and VERY on top of things!!

BOTS should fear you!

AGAIN yeah i notice a differnce with RAID 0 working the fastest

i play with NES emulators so...... not data intensive <>

[Toshiro]

K thnx for the info

[fl0ppyd1scours3]

wait just thought of something FRAME rate depends on your moniters refresh rate! for instance a moniter set to 60 herts can have 60fps!! and no more than that!! so if you have 75 hz or 85hz or even 120hz set it 2 higher numbers