16MB Cache drives ok for RAID 0+1?

[jconly]

I don't need a lot of size in my Raid 0+1, and I have two 320GB drives around already, so I was wondering if using 4 Seagate 320GB 7200.10 drives would be a bad idea because of the smaller cache?

Would I see a big performance hit, or would the cost savings be worth it?

 

[Cyberjenks]

Raid

IF there is a performance hit at all it would be very small. Toms hardware had a great article about Drive cache and performance I tryed finding it for you but...

 

[trainguy77]

Just make certain you back up. As your chance of failure gets worse as you go along.

 

[Macinposh]

Dont.Do.Softaware.Raid.0+1.


Not that it has lesser redundancy than raid10,also there a people who have not managed to rebuild the raid when testing for drive failure.

What use is there for such a raid?

 

[jconly]

Thanks for the response guys.
I'll check out that article on Tom's

I won't be doing software RAID. It will be hardware.
There is a need for 10 when people need speed, but also protection from physical drive failure.
Something I need for my in progress photoshop files.
It all gets backed up every hour, and then sent to archive storage whenever the project is done.

 

[Umbongo]

I'm a bit confused as to what you are asking as 16mb of cache isn't "small" and I would think the vast majority of raids don't have that much.