?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

no more xp, no more vista. . .

well with the exception of Kris' netbook. . .

the whole house is now running Windows 7 or Server 2008

I *REALLY* love windows 7

AND

I was able to upgrade my Build 7100 RC1 Ultimate Machines to Build 7600 Professional without any issues.

The gaming rig is humming along nicely, the slowest item in the windows score is the 10K RPM Western Digital Raptor. . .

um, guess I won't be increasing the speed by modifying *THAT*

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
razorslave
Aug. 19th, 2009 03:22 pm (UTC)
not willing to take the 50% increased chance of catastrophic HD Failure from a Raid 0 array.

Edited at 2009-08-19 03:22 pm (UTC)
deprivation
Aug. 19th, 2009 05:15 pm (UTC)
RAID 1 it - reads should happen spread across both drives, writes should remain near the same.

or, just move on to SSD.

RAID 0 would only make it larger, not speed up reads or writes necessarily.
razorslave
Aug. 19th, 2009 05:29 pm (UTC)
eh, raid w/o redundancy is a bad idea, doubles the rate of failure of the array.

Raid 0 is Striping, data is written to both drives at the same time boosting the speed at which data can be written and read from the drives. But no redundancy so you double your chance of catastrophic HD Failure.

Raid 1 is mirroring, data would be the same, across both drives and would give no real speed benefit, as the changes made to the main drive would just be replicating to the mirrored drive.

if I was going to do anything, it would likely be be a raid 5, which gives better read and decent write times.

or a raid Raid 10 (1 + 0) Mirrored Stripes which would give me the benefits of Raid 0 while providing me with redundancy via mirroring of the Striped Raid 0 arrays.
deprivation
Aug. 19th, 2009 05:49 pm (UTC)
i wasn't suggesting RAID 0 - just noting that it wouldn't speed up writes any, even if it were safe :)

RAID 1 is mirroring - but there is a significant speed difference:

o writes can be asynchronous, so no requirement to write to all drives at the same time, one write and one write scheduled for later

o reads happen in parallel - reads can happen from all devices simultaneously, typically the RAID controller (software or hardware) will optimize reads, at worst case reading data from the device whose read head is closest, limiting seek time


RAID 5, on the other hand, uses parity computations on writes. the benefit of RAID 5 is only having to sacrifice one device for redundancy. give 3 devices, you only lose 1/3 of the combined storage space for the benefit of redundancy.

unfortunately, with RAID 5, all writes must happen on all devices to guarantee parity, and all writes require an expensive parity computation before they can happen. this means significantly slower write times.

as an aside, for home, where speed is unimportant, but capacity and redundancy are, i use RAID 5. for any servers deployed, i use either RAID 1 or RAID 1+0 depending on the requirement: 1 for webservers, 1+0 for database.

on a heavily loaded machine, i've seen write times move from seconds to milliseconds moving from RAID 5 to RAID 1+0, on heavily loaded Oracle RAC clusters.
(Deleted comment)
razorslave
Aug. 19th, 2009 07:57 pm (UTC)
Battlefield 2142
GTA IV
Call of Duty 4
Dawn of War 2
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )