🚀 go-pugleaf

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa7bcce156b452c98a267@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <HUj%b.77267$Wa.9273@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au says...
> > Yeah, sure. I dont doubt that it can be faster. But it's also true that
> > they can be slower... when all the motherboards started coming out a
> > while back with built in RAID controllers, people were going out and
> > setting up their RAID arrays and thinking how much faster it would be...
> > but those setups often just dont cut it (: They're OK for backup
> > purposes I guess.
>
> I agree - RAID on the motherboard with no cache is a bad thing. In most
> cases they implemented a cheap RAID chipset and without the cache it's
> not much better than an OS RAID, but it does offer performance benefits.
>
> Most people don't understand RAID, they think that RAID is always faster
> than non-RAID, and that's just not always true. RAID 1 is almost as fast
> as a single drive for writes, but, can be faster than a single drive for
> reads since the data can be read from either drive. RAID 5 has poor
> write times, but great read times....
>
> In most cases, for home users, and for people doing PS type work, a
> simple MIRROR will save their butts in case of a hardware failure, but
> that's about the only benefit - most of these users set the mirror up as
> one large mirror, then partition it, and still think it's two drives for
> purposes of swap/temp space... They should have installed a single drive
> as a drive for swap/temp space and then they would have seen a
> difference.

A mirror file is fine for storage but totally useless for a swap file. I
dont think that PS is a special example of RAID useage for storage - I think
somewhere back at the top someone was asking for a RAID that would improve
speed not storage.

The only setup that can improve swap file speed is a RAID 0 combo.

Silicon Graphics has the worlds benchmark on RAID performance. Why do you
think that is ?