Heres everything together.
(Dont mind the athlon64 sticker, forgot it was there)
Its a:
EVGA Nvidia 750i SLi FTW Motherboard
Q6600 Core 2 Quad, Overclocked to 3.6GHz
2x2GB Corsair XMS2 800MHz DDR2
2xPNY 8800GT in SLi @ 675mhz/1950mhz
2x 320GB Hitachi SATA2 drives in Raid0
Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro
17,700 in 3dmark06 so far.
nice computer
not a big fan of a raid 0 in anything but good luck with it.
The RAID 0 drives are only being used for OS and app installations, I have 2 500GB SATA2 drives I am using for data storage, If one of the 320’s go and fucks the raid, oh well.
What brand of vest is that? Paraclete?
Logo looks like Mar-om Dolphin
well that would be why you built the raid to begin with, if a drive goes, it’s fine just replace and it rebuilds…
I was under the impression that RAID 0 has the rather annoying property of the data on all disks is destroyed if any disk in the array shits the bed.
lol im all banged up. i guess i just assumed raid 1 for os :hsugh:
i’d definitely raid 1 that shit
this is true, but it does provide faster disk access. I would never think to use raid 0 by itself for anything, but some people are obsessed with speed.
Our analysis computer at work is setup with raid 0. I also have a backup drive where I have all the files backed up (I back up working files probably four times a day). Is there any reason to change from raid 0? I frequently create a results file >3GB - would the access speed help with this?
I Don’t need mirrored drives for my OS, theres nothing critical on it, its mainly a gaming box, I have 2 500GB storage drives in there already for data storage, the RAID I could care less about, Its holding only my OS and installed apps… If a drive goes down, oh well throw a new drive in and reinstall windows.
Forgot to say, one of the 320GB drives was DOA, so I am waiting for an RMA, running single drive right now.
My Vista Experience Ratings are 5.9(Max) straight across the board, EXCEPT HDD Transfer speed, which is a 5.6… Cant wait to get my drive back 
RAID 0 is bashed by most because it has NO redundancy, One drive failure in the RAID leads to complete data loss.
But for something where you are not worried about longterm data storage, and are looking for the fastest data transfers possible, RAID 0 is Ideal.
If you are backing up to the backup drive daily, and the only adverse effect of having the RAID crash is needing to replace the failed drive and reinstall windows, I would leave it just how it is for the fastest data access.
PM sent.
RAID 0 is mentioned as on Page 7, Jeff.
Should have gone with a fiber channel SAN.
I have done work on raid 0 servers and also on raid 1 and 5 servers. The performance is better on raid 0, but not worth the risk of losing everything if any one of the drives fails. If you truly could care less what is on it and can get everything back and tolerate the downtime, go for it.
I would not put raid 0 on anything, it’s not worth the risk.
I am with you on that one, RAID 0 blows… But I guess a RAID 1+0 would be a little excessive for a home machine to get the same performance and redundancy.
dude… raid 0 is garbage and this is a home machine LOL
do some iop counters and report back :kekegay:
It is when the amount of money you make is dependent on the job getting completed and MTBF of greater than one year on those drive arrays.
Say you can complete 30 analysis jobs a year on RAID 1 and 35 on RAID 0.
Say each job makes the company on average $100,000.
I find that to be worth the risk if you back up the job files frequently and you’re only down a day to rebuild the system if it does crash…
RAID 1+0 is a bit excessive for my home use, just to run windows and games from.
Looks like some cool hardware. I always enjoy new computer builds.
