thats the question. personally, i dont think the increase in performance is worth the cost of an additional hard drive.
building a new box, they back ordered the raptor 150 gig hard drive. been trying to justify buying one retail under the pretense of raiding them when the back order comes in. my 6 year old antec box has been cleaned and repainted....for the 4th time......the other gear is installed, and here i sit playing with my new system on an old ide hard drive i pryed out of an external hard drive case to see if everything else is working.
from the hard numbers, the increase looks marginal. has anyone tried both raid and non raid in the same box and seen any noticable differance?
i have already seen a differance with the amd quad core loading windows. i was installing a video driver at the same time windows was doing its automated new devise installation for the sound driver. no lag, no hang up. performed both installations at the same time without a glitch.
currently playng with directx 10 with XP which is really bugging me to go buy another hard drive instead of waiting for my bo so i can load AoC to see if there is any differance.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- to raid or not ro raid......
to raid or not ro raid......Follow
Dx10 with XP? It's Vista only and not available for AoC until Augsut I think.
There's a noticeable diffrence in load times, it just depends if you think the added complexity is worth it. I don't, particularly, I think Kao does. This should be obvious, but it won't improve framrates or in game performance.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#4REDACTED,
Posted: Jun 13 2008 at 11:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) thanks, ill wait then. cant see blowing 200 bucks for a lack of patience for a few days.
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a noticeable diffrence in load times, it just depends if you think the added complexity is worth it. I don't, particularly, I think Kao does. This should be obvious, but it won't improve framrates or in game performance.
also note that unless you are using true HARDWARE RAID your performance can be slower then not to RAID. so software, aka FRAID or Fake RAID, is never a good option for performance.
Honestly, I've never been that impressed with the need or utility of using RAID on a home system. There are a small number of edge cases in which you'll gain something (data security or performance increase), but usually you're trading one for the other, and honestly... It's a home system.
Now. I've been using RAID on some systems I've been setting up semi-recently. But these are HP c7000 enclosures, with 4 pairs of BL460c's, each using a SB40c disk array as direct attached disk. So a single "box" gives me 8 systems, each with quad cpu, and redundant networking, and 580ish GB of RAID5 disk space. Course, I'm actually installing ESX servers on each of those and creating a half dozen VMs on each, using one to serve filespace to the others dynamically, and utilizing them in an LSF cluster with 3 job slots on each to run some specialized software (used to run offline simulations of SOC test software). After I'm done populating them, I'll end up with the ability to run up to 120 simultaneous instances of the software (all nicely wrapped via start up scripts I've written). Everything, including offline virtual vector memory (which runs about 64M per "pin") will be enclosed inside a single box that takes up about a quarter of a server room rack.
But that's what I use it for. Lately at least. I did a lot more RAID stuff when I used to be the head file server admin for my department. It's more of a "you get there from here by doing this" sort of thing now. IMO, many people place too much magical belief in "RAID" as though it's something that improves things, so you should use it. It's really about need. If you "need" to use RAID to manage data, you should. To be perfectly honest, in almost all cases, if you can load what you're doing on a single disk and run it that way, you're usually better off.
Now. I've been using RAID on some systems I've been setting up semi-recently. But these are HP c7000 enclosures, with 4 pairs of BL460c's, each using a SB40c disk array as direct attached disk. So a single "box" gives me 8 systems, each with quad cpu, and redundant networking, and 580ish GB of RAID5 disk space. Course, I'm actually installing ESX servers on each of those and creating a half dozen VMs on each, using one to serve filespace to the others dynamically, and utilizing them in an LSF cluster with 3 job slots on each to run some specialized software (used to run offline simulations of SOC test software). After I'm done populating them, I'll end up with the ability to run up to 120 simultaneous instances of the software (all nicely wrapped via start up scripts I've written). Everything, including offline virtual vector memory (which runs about 64M per "pin") will be enclosed inside a single box that takes up about a quarter of a server room rack.
But that's what I use it for. Lately at least. I did a lot more RAID stuff when I used to be the head file server admin for my department. It's more of a "you get there from here by doing this" sort of thing now. IMO, many people place too much magical belief in "RAID" as though it's something that improves things, so you should use it. It's really about need. If you "need" to use RAID to manage data, you should. To be perfectly honest, in almost all cases, if you can load what you're doing on a single disk and run it that way, you're usually better off.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I thought this was going to be about getting a character over level 30.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#8REDACTED,
Posted: Jun 13 2008 at 7:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) something to play with for the adventurious.
shadowrelm wrote:
something to play with for the adventurious.
http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download/#dxxp
its working on this machine, loading AoC to see if there are compatability issues being the game was designed for dx9 and not 10.
http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download/#dxxp
its working on this machine, loading AoC to see if there are compatability issues being the game was designed for dx9 and not 10.
interesting, but why.
It's really the best thing for killing bugs.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#11REDACTED,
Posted: Jun 14 2008 at 6:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) interesting, but why
Recent Visitors: 391
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (391)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- to raid or not ro raid......
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC