Author: John Dahlem
Date: 20:48:52 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 22:53:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Hmm, this computer had 768 megs RAM, which is a lot for PCs, but I don't know if that is what you mean by a lot or not. When you say it doesn't really benefit though, are you talking about only in chess or in all applications? Basically, is raid-0 (or seperate HDs) worth anywhere near $200 in your opinion?
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.