Yet another Raid0 question

[Neuromancer]

Currently I am running 2-80GB SATA150 8mb cache HDDs. I have it partitioned into 2, and I dont use the second partition for anytihng.

I also have 2 -320GB SATA300 Drives, (might be 16MB cache, I dont recall). Currently I am using them for storage.

Should I

a) Install Windows on 1 of those hdds running in SATA2 mode.

b) Stripe the 320s and install windows on that. (also SATA2 mode)

c) Just leave well enough alone, and be happy with all my empty hdd space.

[~(o)-(0)~]

why not just transfer the files off the 2 80s, and stripe them, leaving your other drives for storage

[Neuromancer]

why not just transfer the files off the 2 80s, and stripe them, leaving your other drives for storage

Oops yah I forgot to mention that..

The 80s are striped with 1 80GB OS partition and 1 80GB nothing partition.

Then I have a 120GB with nothing on it, 1 320GB with about 200GB of video on it

And 1 320GB thats just file storage (30GB of stuff.. Plus I have another 80GB pata and a 120GB pata not doing anything)

I suppose what I am really getting at is, IF I striped the 2 320GB Drives I know they would perform better then the 2 80s.. However Say I striped them. made 1 80GB OS install partiton and left the rest for storage. Would that remaining space slow down the performance of the stripe so that its not worth doing?

I am getting ready to set it up as a HTPC/Server so I figured the 320S striped would have better I/Os then the 80s... And since its going to be a multi tasking machine I was not sure about hte balance of file serving/ application running (remote desktop etc)

[tuskenraider]

Chances are your 320's are faster than the 80's and would be quicker in RAID0. But putting data on a second partition, means programs on the first that access data on the second are both fighting for I/O requests on the same pair of drives so using your leftover drives for data would be better. I'd put the pagefile on one used just for data as well or even a drive by itself.

[Neuromancer]

Last night I used HDtach to compare my 160GB stripe vs 1 320GB perp drive... WOW

I hit 297MB burst on my strip vs 133 on the perp.
Sustained 125 vs 83

Acess time was better on the 320 16 ms vs 12

Guess I will stick with my mini array :) (hmm or 2 more 80 for a raid0+1...)

[tuskenraider]

Last night I used HDtach to compare my 160GB stripe vs 1 320GB perp drive... WOW

I hit 297MB burst on my strip vs 133 on the perp.
Sustained 125 vs 83

Acess time was better on the 320 16 ms vs 12

Guess I will stick with my mini array :) (hmm or 2 more 80 for a raid0+1...)
The burst speed isn't very accurate with that program and is only an indicator of speed from the cache to the controller, which the physical drive would never be able to keep up with for any length of time. 25% better access time is pretty signifigant and if you RAID0'd the 320 you likely see sustained speeds in the 150MB/s range.