Hey everybody I was hoping you all could help me get my head around different raid setups a little bit, I have been searching so please don't just say Google it.
Raid 0 vs RAID 1: I get how they work. RAID 0 splits the data between two drives, Raid 1 duplicates.
Here is my problem.
Everything I read says RAID 0 is best performance because it can access the data faster.
Why is having half the data on one drive, and half on another, better than having all of the data on both drives?
All of the data on the RAID 0 setup is also on the RAID 1 setup. All of the data could be accessed just as quickly. PLUS if two bits of information were needed and both were on the same hard drive in RAID 0, wouldn't that mean in RAID 1 they could be read simultaneously?
This is a theoretical budget be damned question about which system actually retrieves data at a faster rate.
If anybody could help me out with this I would greatly appreciate it.
Raid 0 vs RAID 1: I get how they work. RAID 0 splits the data between two drives, Raid 1 duplicates.
Here is my problem.
Everything I read says RAID 0 is best performance because it can access the data faster.
Why is having half the data on one drive, and half on another, better than having all of the data on both drives?
All of the data on the RAID 0 setup is also on the RAID 1 setup. All of the data could be accessed just as quickly. PLUS if two bits of information were needed and both were on the same hard drive in RAID 0, wouldn't that mean in RAID 1 they could be read simultaneously?
This is a theoretical budget be damned question about which system actually retrieves data at a faster rate.
If anybody could help me out with this I would greatly appreciate it.