You have no idea what he is going to do in the future and he said he wants RAID and he wants it to last another 7 years or more. And he also said he would spend more money if necessary to do it. He just does not want to waste money. Raid is definitely not wasting money. It double capacity and double performance for the same money. Actually cheaper because larger drives (to a point) cost less than smaller drives.
prior generation - as noted on newegg's page:
Raid 0 does not double capacity for the same money, unless you're comparing to Raid1. Buying two drives means spending twice as much for twice the capacity. Or if the choice is between buying two 1TB drives to stripe or 1 2TB drive to store, you'll spend 60 or 70% more since the pricing isn't proportional between the two. (from 2 to 4 is closer to parity at current pricing).
Reliability just fine. You are making to big of the deal out of nothing. But comparing to performance it is definitely worth "risking" (notice the quotes because really there is no risk) using RAID 0. If Raid 0 was that bad no one would be using it. Yet lots of people using it because there is no other way to double performance. Almost every motherboard has that feature. Almost every manufacturer of external enclosure has enclosure that can do RAID. Do you really think they are stupid to include that option if no one is using it?
All 3!!!!!! You just simply can't get performance of the RAID 0 out of the single drive. Period.
He never said cheap!!! He said he doesn't want to spend extra if not necessary but will if it is. So stop fixating on cheap. You get what you pay for.
C'mon, extra $50-70 that is all that cost. If there was a choice of getting SSD and secondary HD or RAID 0, RAID wins every time. I can simulate SSD performance by never shutting down computer and only using sleep mode. Once software is loaded for the first time it will load significantly faster on the consecutive load. And so after the awake. And there is nothing you can say that change my mind because I have tested and re-tested this scenario many times.
Not even close. Most just buy pre-built computers without SSD.
OP already said that hybrid is not a good choice because 2 HD is RAID 0 cost the same or less and gets better performance. And OP is correct. Did you read?
Once a feature is created, it tends to last. Even if it's only being used by self proclaimed power users. BTW, you continue to be a bit sloppy with language- are people using the fakeraid chipsets to do striping? mirroring? both? RAID by itself means nothing.
no, you pick 2. R0 gives up reliability. R1 gives up cheap. R5 gives up fast. (Not as much as it used to, but it's still giving up performance to the others) Many will argue that R5 also gave up reliability since we went to multi terabyte arrays.
So rather than wave your hands around and claim "it works great, dude!" Put up your repeatable test scenario and results. Specifics are best.
He is likely mistaken, then. You can come up with use cases where it is true. Sequentual big file transfers are the winner, and particularly large writes. It's a great synthetic benchmark, but in actual use they are a minority. But this is again another example of being vague about the use case and showing what Malch is calling raiditis.
uh, what are you writing? How often? What else are you doing? And how much of that 1 or 2 TB do you actually want to use?
Those options don't make much sense to me. But...
#1 - 2 TB drive for $100 with a 155 MB/s read throughput
For me, and in most home/workstation settings, I think access times are hugely more important than sequential throughput.
I'd go for an SSD with either:
Seriously????? Why bother to keep it if it is not popular?
Seriously?????
I was not talking about commercial environment obviously but RAID 0 originated in that environment in commercial networks and it trickled down to home computers.
Only according to you. One one of my machines have 3 RAID 0, one internal and 2 external.
Actually a lot of experience and I back up my data religiously.
I already gave you specifics. Very simple. If you are slow to understand I will give you more details.
No he is not mistaken. You should read first before replying. I am not going to do it for you.
More like 100% more. I read and write terabytes of data very often because I take over a 100K pictures, at least, every year all in RAW.
Correct me if my math is wrong.
Do you know why?
Nope. It depends what other work you do in the meantime. Just because most of the CS6 files are cached in RAM doesn't mean they will stay there indefinitely. They won't. They will get discarded over time in favor of other more recently used files. With suitable tools you can manually flush the cache of memory mapped files too.
Yes, I know why.
Yep, if I use the same software every day, several times per day, it never gets discarded.
The bottom line one does not have to have SSD to have fast loading of software as long as one keeps system on and uses sleep mode instead of shutdown. And boot is instant (more or less) from the sleep mode.
It depends what else you do on the system. If you actually use it to do real work, the cached files can soon be discarded.
Seriously?
Your data should be treated just as well as a commercial environment would, at least in terms of reliability. The home user can (likely) afford a longer outage window, but losing your last week's worth of edits (because of your backup schedule) should be unacceptable.
don't confuse lack of incidents as being reliable. Running a 10% chance of losing the array isn't reliable to me, You may deem it reliable enough, but there's no question it's less reliable than the single disk or the mirror.
daily? hourly? R0 means the potential loss of everything since the last backup.
you only get that 100% improvement when doing simple copies. And the 840 Pro is faster at doing that as well. You need to go to a 4 stripe mirror just to catch up to one of them.
And by the way, that didn't include any really heavy lifting like noise reduction, lens corrections and the like which will increase the CPU load by dramatic increments.
