16MB Cache drives ok for RAID 0+1?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jconly, Jan 31, 2008.

  1. jconly macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Cyberjenks macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Location:
    So. Ca.
    #2
    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...
     
  3. trainguy77 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    #3
    Just make certain you back up. :) As your chance of failure gets worse as you go along.
     
  4. Macinposh macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Location:
    Kreplakistan
    #4
    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?
     
  5. jconly thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #5
    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.
     
  6. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #6
    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.
     

Share This Page