raid 0

In RAID 0 ( pure striping ) , is the size of the virtual drive available to
the OS additive in terms of # of physical disk drives ?

So , if I use 2 80GB SSD in a RAID 0 , in Windows Server 2008 I would see a
single ~160GB drive ?

3 80GB SSD , I see ~240GB ?

etc.

Nothing specific to server 2008 but yes.


--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect


"John A Grandy" wrote:
> In RAID 0 ( pure striping ) , is the size of the virtual drive available
> to the OS additive in terms of # of physical disk drives ?
>
> So , if I use 2 80GB SSD in a RAID 0 , in Windows Server 2008 I would see
> a single ~160GB drive ?
>
> 3 80GB SSD , I see ~240GB ?
>
> etc.
>
>
>

Hi Dave, and thanks for the response.

What about performance ?

To what degree are data-write speeds enhanced by spreading data over 3 disks
versus 2 disks ?

Same question for data-read speeds.


"Dave Patrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Nothing specific to server 2008 but yes.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
> Microsoft Certified Professional
> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>
>
> "John A Grandy" wrote:
>> In RAID 0 ( pure striping ) , is the size of the virtual drive available
>> to the OS additive in terms of # of physical disk drives ?
>>
>> So , if I use 2 80GB SSD in a RAID 0 , in Windows Server 2008 I would see
>> a single ~160GB drive ?
>>
>> 3 80GB SSD , I see ~240GB ?
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>

Performance is about the only reason to go raid 0. This could greatly depend
on the controller as well. The documentation for your controller might have
charts with this info.



--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect


"John A Grandy" wrote:
> Hi Dave, and thanks for the response.
>
> What about performance ?
>
> To what degree are data-write speeds enhanced by spreading data over 3
> disks versus 2 disks ?
>
> Same question for data-read speeds.

Remember that when you are using RAID 0, if one of the disks fails, you wont
be able to use at all that volume. RAID-5 is usually the best solution
because combines performance with fault tolerance.

The drawback for RAID-5 is that when you are using 3 HD (minimum for this
configuration) you'll see a volume that includes only 2 disks size. So, if
you have three 80GB HD with RAID-5, the volume will be 160GB.

Cheers

--

augusto alvarez | it professional
MCP - MCTS - MCITP DBA
http://blog.augustoalvarez.com.ar/


"Dave Patrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Performance is about the only reason to go raid 0. This could greatly
> depend on the controller as well. The documentation for your controller
> might have charts with this info.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
> Microsoft Certified Professional
> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>
>
> "John A Grandy" wrote:
>> Hi Dave, and thanks for the response.
>>
>> What about performance ?
>>
>> To what degree are data-write speeds enhanced by spreading data over 3
>> disks versus 2 disks ?
>>
>> Same question for data-read speeds.
>