Windows 7 Thread, Windows 7 HDD Spec in Technical; Stretch the budget a bit more and get a third hard disk! - Looking at the spec that motherboard supports ...
22nd March 2010, 02:30 PM #16
Stretch the budget a bit more and get a third hard disk! - Looking at the spec that motherboard supports Raid 5, so you'd get the speed and some redundancy.
22nd March 2010, 02:46 PM #17
It's a personal build for him purchased privately.
Originally Posted by apeo
Originally Posted by steveg
There are only 2 SAS connectors though so could not use SAS and RAID 5 would have been nice. Could buy a seperate card though.
22nd March 2010, 02:49 PM #18
In some circumstances RAID1 can be faster than RAID5 due to RAID5's increased overhead.
Last edited by Jamo; 22nd March 2010 at 02:57 PM.
Reason: my idiotness
22nd March 2010, 02:53 PM #19
You speak true words Jamo, I had this conversation with the head support guy at Fujitsu a few weeks back down in Bracknell, and he was saying that you shouldn't store your SQL log files on RAID 5 because it can slow the system down as it can't handle the throughput needed so its better to stick them on a RAID 0 or RAID 1.
Originally Posted by Jamo
22nd March 2010, 03:22 PM #20
The spec of your pc is similar to one i built at the weekend, apart from the one i built had a 80Gb intel SSD, it got a score of 7.5 in windows, mighty quick for under £200.
22nd March 2010, 03:54 PM #21
Hmm im interested to see what this one gets then. Its guna get W7 x64 on it 2mz!
23rd March 2010, 08:05 AM #22
My mistake, i doubled checked last night and it has a score of 7.7
23rd March 2010, 02:14 PM #23
Its all done just need to run the score checker on it which I have forgot to run!
23rd March 2010, 02:16 PM #24
Slightly OT, but am I right in thinking that RAID1 will give you faster read (especially with larger files) and RAID0 faster write?
Does the actual relative change vary much with controllers as well, compared to having the same drives in a non array setup will the performance difference always be of the same magnitude? (Taking for example two PCI-E x 16 RAID cards so the bus bandwidth is constant)
23rd March 2010, 02:30 PM #25
RAID0 should be faster in most cases, RAID5 is supposed to be slower as it involves calculations of parity etc which RAID0 doesn't.
RAID0 stripes data effectively storing one half on one physical media adn one half on the other.
RAID10 is becoming more popular which is RAID1 volumes striped requires 4 disks min but has the best of both worlds.
23rd March 2010, 03:18 PM #26
I hope this deputy heads obsession with expensive gadget is at his own expence and not the schools.
Originally Posted by danrhodes
23rd March 2010, 03:22 PM #27
I was just thinking the same thing runcmd - thankfully it's private!
Originally Posted by danrhodes
23rd March 2010, 03:33 PM #28
Yeah it's all private with his own coin!
Originally Posted by runcmd
23rd March 2010, 04:33 PM #29
Can't help but feel that if you're gonna blow £400-500 on 2 x 300Gb SAS Harddrives you'd be better off just buying a 256MB SSD drive for the same amount of cash?
23rd March 2010, 07:55 PM #30
Not sure about a 256MB drive, might be pwned by anything but Win3.1 lol
Originally Posted by flyinghaggis
By cookie_monster in forum Windows 7
Last Post: 22nd March 2010, 10:22 PM
By Diello in forum Hardware
Last Post: 28th January 2010, 10:46 AM
By PrimaryTech in forum Hardware
Last Post: 5th April 2009, 02:56 PM
By llawwehttam in forum Windows
Last Post: 24th February 2009, 02:30 PM
By DaveP in forum Hardware
Last Post: 4th January 2008, 01:01 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)