mbentley
03-29-03, 08:01 AM
okay, as a few of you may know, i have a raid0 setup that is currently made up of 2 - 80 GB western digital drives, one being the 2 MB cache version, the other being the se 8 MB version. i know that it's recommended to put the drives in a stand-alone state due to the fact that they are not the same drives, but i decided to try it anyway. i am currently running windows xp, sp1 (just installed 2 days ago). although the performance isn't quite as good as 2 - 80 GB 8 mb cache drives, i was extremely happy with the results:
sandra 2003 file system benchmark
http://128.211.198.172/oc/hd_bench/raid_sandra.png
atto disk benchmark
http://128.211.198.172/oc/hd_bench/raid_atto.png
this just goes to show that it can work out to make a decent array. as a side note, an array with 2 different cache sizes seems to work better in winxp than win2k. in win2k, i was getting scores that were a lot lower than this at a fresh win2k install...
*edit: does anybody have 2 - 80 GB western digital se (8 MB cache) drives in a raid0 array? i really wish i could have some benchmarks to compare to in order to see how efficient this is...*
sandra 2003 file system benchmark
http://128.211.198.172/oc/hd_bench/raid_sandra.png
atto disk benchmark
http://128.211.198.172/oc/hd_bench/raid_atto.png
this just goes to show that it can work out to make a decent array. as a side note, an array with 2 different cache sizes seems to work better in winxp than win2k. in win2k, i was getting scores that were a lot lower than this at a fresh win2k install...
*edit: does anybody have 2 - 80 GB western digital se (8 MB cache) drives in a raid0 array? i really wish i could have some benchmarks to compare to in order to see how efficient this is...*