Which drive setup would be faster?

[netdog]

I currently have 2 Samsung F1 750s and the stock 320 in an early 2008 2.8 Octo with 8GB of RAM.

I use FCE, PS CS3, Aperture and the usual suspects all with some frequency.

Current drive setup:

320 boot, 2x750s in RAID1 setup.

Proposed setups:

• 4 Samsung F1 750s in a RAID 1+0 - encompassing boot and user directory and work disk all in 1 1.5TB striped, redundant workspace.
• Current setup, but stripe Samsung disks 2 and 3 instead of RAID1 and just backup a lot. 1.5 TB workspace. Perhaps add a scratch disk.
• Similar to the above option, but get a faster boot disk and make the 320 a scratch disk (disk 4)

Any thoughts on the above? Other configurations? I don't want to buy a RAID card.

Thanks!

 

[tourneur]

I'm in a very similar situation. I've got a Mac Pro with the 320 stock drive coming mid-february and have ordered 2x Samsung F1 750's. The system is gonna be used for video editing.

What I had in mind is:
F1 #1: system/apps and data (2 partitions)
F1 #2: scratch
320: Time Machine

The 320 isn't that fast supposedly so I'm hesitant on using it as my sytem drive.
Down the line I plan on getting 2 extra 750 (or 1TB) drives and move the 320 to an external, but for now this would be enough.

 

[netdog]

Also wondering why, if there are two mirrored drives, OS X can't read and write from both simultaneously as that would boost read and write time significantly, even with some overhead to make sure that the same file isn't being accessed on both drives, and what needs updating on each during the space between.

 

[amik]

Also wondering why, if there are two mirrored drives, OS X can't read and write from both simultaneously as that would boost read and write time significantly, even with some overhead to make sure that the same file isn't being accessed on both drives, and what needs updating on each during the space between.

It can read simultaneously and a performance benefit is realized. It also writes simultaneously, but it has to write the whole file to each disk, rather than just half, so there is no performance increase on the write side. If it didn't write the whole file simultaneously, it wouldn't be RAID 1.

 

[netdog]

It can read simultaneously and a performance benefit is realized. It also writes simultaneously, but it has to write the whole file to each disk, rather than just half, so there is no performance increase on the write side. If it didn't write the whole file simultaneously, it wouldn't be RAID 1.

Interesting. So why does Apple say that there is no performance benefit from RAID1? I am sure you are right. I wonder if Apple's software-based solution doesn't take advantage of that.

 

[mogrefy]

I'm in a very similar situation. I've got a Mac Pro with the 320 stock drive coming mid-february and have ordered 2x Samsung F1 750's. The system is gonna be used for video editing.

What I had in mind is:
F1 #1: system/apps and data (2 partitions)
F1 #2: scratch
320: Time Machine

The 320 isn't that fast supposedly so I'm hesitant on using it as my sytem drive.
Down the line I plan on getting 2 extra 750 (or 1TB) drives and move the 320 to an external, but for now this would be enough.

Why are you planning on using two partitions for the F1 #1?

I am going to be in a similar situation:
F1 #1: OS X System / Apps / User Data
F1 #2: Windows Bootcamp / Win Media Storage (required for work + streaming to helios x3000)
500GB: Pulled from current desktop - time machine disk
320GB: VMware Systems (Linux Ubuntu Box + VMWare images for work)

 

[flyingscott]

Why RAID? Seriously... Especially a software RAID?