Hi all,
In fleshing out the details of my upcoming new machine, I'm now wondering whether I should get 4 16 mb 320 gig perp drives and put them in raid 0, or just two. My initial understanding was that 4 drives would be considerably quicker than two, but I've since read some things that would indicate the random seek time would suffer with 4 drives. However, reading an article referenced elsewhere in this forum seemed to indicate that while there would be some random seek performance, it could be minimized by increasing the data chunk size (I forget the correct term for that).
Meanwhile, the author of the sticky about running these perp drives in matrix raid 0 using the fastest part of the drive mentioned that he found performance was best with a chunk size of 128 kb. This would seem to indicate that the hit against random seek time would be minimal. Is this correct?
If not, should I maybe look into setting up 2 raid 0 arrays with 2 drives each instead of one array with 4?
In fleshing out the details of my upcoming new machine, I'm now wondering whether I should get 4 16 mb 320 gig perp drives and put them in raid 0, or just two. My initial understanding was that 4 drives would be considerably quicker than two, but I've since read some things that would indicate the random seek time would suffer with 4 drives. However, reading an article referenced elsewhere in this forum seemed to indicate that while there would be some random seek performance, it could be minimized by increasing the data chunk size (I forget the correct term for that).
Meanwhile, the author of the sticky about running these perp drives in matrix raid 0 using the fastest part of the drive mentioned that he found performance was best with a chunk size of 128 kb. This would seem to indicate that the hit against random seek time would be minimal. Is this correct?
If not, should I maybe look into setting up 2 raid 0 arrays with 2 drives each instead of one array with 4?