Possable project

[imgregrice]

I plan to use this as a image server and maybe an ftp

so looks are all that matter lol

[Matthew]

Any pics so far?

[imgregrice]

acctualy I started sanding /cutting late last night after breakfast ill go take some pics and get back to work

*edit*

I just realized I hadned posted ANY pics on this thread so ill link you to another forum I posted pix on http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=85884

[joex444]

Been using RAID in my PCs for ~4 yrs now.

To explain further:

- RAID0: 2, 3, or 4 drives combined in capacity. Thus, FOUR 60GB drives give 240GB like TWO 120GBs do. However, there is a setting when you make the array called 'stripe size.' Mine is 64K, and since I have TWO 120GBs, every other 64K gets written to ONE drive. The other drive contains the second 64K, so on and so forth. Thus, to write a 1GB file to the 240GB array (BTW, once you RAID a group of drives, it becomes one physical drive as far as Windows or Linux is concerned. It knows you have 2+ drives, but it handles it like 1 drive), 512MB gets written to drive #1 and 512MB to drive #2. To read it back, it uses both drives simultaneously, so the SPEED is increased. The read time (access time) is INCREASED as well, so small files actually read slower, but its not noticeable. For instance, I have TWO Seagate 7200RPM 8MB Cache ATA/133 drives in RAID0, and when I benchmark it (HDTach), it averages 67MB/s, not dipping below 58MB/s! If I added a 3rd for a 360GB array, it would be faster, and 4 drives is faster still. If you want raw performance and have a choice between, say FOUR 160GB or TWO 300GB, I'd go with the 160s, it will be faster. It will not be as safe, though (but you did want raw performance as if 1 of these 4 fails, everything is lost. Obviously 1 in 4 drives failing is more likely than 1 in 2 drives.

-RAID1: 2 drives (can you do 3 or 4? never had them to try...maybe) with the capacity of a single drive. Thus, TWO 120GB becomes a single 120GB drive as far as software is concerned. If you write a 1GB file to the array, it gets written twice, but you can only SEE 1 copy of it. The other you dont know about (its not hidden or anything, remember its the array you access not the individual drives). It decreases read, and write speed, and increases access time.

Not talked about: RAID5...becoming more affordable. 3+ drives. Capacity of the array is the sum of all the drives capacity, less 1 drive. Ex. 4x120GB drives = 360GB; 3x120GB = 240GB. 5x120GB = 480GB (SCSI, expensive SATA cards can do 5 drives [SATA usually 8 connectors in these boards, maybe 12] [SCSI, normally limited to 7 IDs, thus 7 drives, but new SCSI, like U320 supports 15. U160 as well]). The drive not counted toward capacity is the parity drive. It recreates the missing parts of files if a drive fails. If the parity drive fails, the remaing ones recreate the parity drive when it is replaced.

ALSO: you do NOT have to use the same drives. Its recommended, tho. If you had a 20GB, 20GB, 20GB, 40GB array, for RAID0, it would be 80GB (not 100!). Take the lowest capacity drive, multiply by # of drives. Thus, a 4GB, 10GB, 20GB, 40GB array yields 16GB RAID0 -- missing out on 48GB of potential capacity.

JBOD: combine capacity, don't do anything for speed. basically, once it fills up one drive, it moves on to the next. good for mismatched sizes. makes that 4,10,20,40GB setup 74GB, but as slow as 1 drive.

ALSO: RAID controllers can act like IDE or SATA controllers. you dont need to setup RAID. you might have booting issues (like you cant) on some of these controllers. me and my friend have the same mobo, and i boot off the ide raid controller integrated into it as a raid array for 2 drives, and my friend wanted to boot a single drive and couldnt.