Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:53:38 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 21:56:12, John Dahlem wrote: >"I run raid here on several machines. I don't find it to be any faster at all, >>for normal cases (raid is definitely slower in writing). The speed of the disk >>is not as much a problem as the speed of the PCI bus the data has to move over. >>I don't see how you can get 2x the performance with any raid (raid0 or raid5)." > > > >When you say in normal cases, are you speaking of chess, or in general? If it >isn't faster at all in most cases, what is the point of getting 2 hard drives? >I ask because in a computer I am looking at you can get them for about 2-300 >dollars more, and I too thought they were about twice as fast as one HD. > >John Two hard drives can be good at times. IE put the system on one drive, your tablebases on the other. Then seeks to the system stuff won't move the read write heads away from the data you are accessing. raid 5 was really designed for fail-safe data storage. raid 0 (striping) can be faster, but really only if you have a lot of memory bandwidth to access the data in memory quick enough. I haven't seen any cases where raid is significantly faster on the PC platforms I have tested. The hot-swap stuff is nice for replacing a failed drive, and hot spares are even cuter, of course.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.