[windows2000] Re: OT: SATA Hard Drives
- From: "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:57:32 +0100
I don't see why a hardware raid should be different, as long as they are the
same size. Brands shouldn't make a difference I think.
Anyone know better? 8-)
OT: I read a test (on Toms Hardware Guide?) where they tested the Windows
Server software raid against hardware raid cards from the big brands like
Adaptec, LSI etc using ata-drives, and the windows software raid came out
pretty good. In fact IIRC it won some of the tests even. The disadvantage
with the software raid is that it requires some cpu-power, but that even
when the test was made ( a year or so ago) the cpu-performance on any modern
computer was more than enough. This is why I started using this on my
department. The bang for the buck is huge over here. I don't have to ask for
a budget to but specialised raid cards for instance. 8-)
-----Original Message-----
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dogers
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:45 PM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT: SATA Hard Drives
On 06/02/06, Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <> wrote on :
> I am planning on buying a second 200GB hard drive and experiment with a
> RAID array and I was wondering if it is advisable/recommended to buy the
> same name brand?
I run software raids in win2k/xp/win2k3 with same size-different brands
harddrives. No problem there. If I'm building a software raid from
scratch,
I usually buy same size-same brand drives for practical purposes.
Well, software RAID is a bit more flexible than hardware :)
Andrew
Other related posts:
