Raptor Hds?

[liquidtrance123]

The warranties don't cover lost data....and the minimal difference in performance is not worth the risk of data security. I work with large files in the form of video, and no real world benchmark tests showed any difference in performance worth considering. As I mentioned before...read Anand's article.

well i'm glad my drives being in raid 0 seem to piss you off so much but they're staying. And it won't matter if my drives die all my important data is on CDR, my external 120 (which is usually tucked away till i need it) and my Raid5 array downstairs.

so if my Raid 0 goes down i just have to reload my OS and thats all.

its kuz of posts like yours that i stopped coming here so often.

 

[phaelinx]

how much of an increase if any does raid0 offer? or is it depedant on drive specs etc?

 

[dawtips]

well i'm glad my drives being in raid 0 seem to piss you off so much but they're staying. And it won't matter if my drives die all my important data is on CDR, my external 120 (which is usually tucked away till i need it) and my Raid5 array downstairs.

so if my Raid 0 goes down i just have to reload my OS and thats all.

its kuz of posts like yours that i stopped coming here so often.

Ya I pretty much have the same setup and I certainly notice a difference with raid 0 74gig raptors.

 

[liquidtrance123]

Ya I pretty much have the same setup and I certainly notice a difference with raid 0 74gig raptors.

Apparently according to djnes Raid0 is satan and completely worthless so you should break up your raid array now and jump to raid 1 ASAP as to please his greatness.


i love my raid 0 much faster than just 1 drive.

 

[liquidtrance123]

how much of an increase if any does raid0 offer? or is it depedant on drive specs etc?

at certain things Raid 0 is fairly nice, however if your just doing games and word processing its probably not for you as you won't notice "MUCH" difference.

however as djnes so eloquently explained to me Raid 0 sucks. So i guess he's right and we should all break up our raid 0 arrays.

 

[TheGameguru]

I couldnt care a less if you keep or break your Raid 0.

Just please dont continue to spread the "myth" of its huge performance difference when frankly there is none what so ever unless your peforming very specific tasks.

For general Windows and Gaming its actually worse than running the same drives in single drive mode.

I run my 4 74gb Raptors in Raid 5 with an Adaptec SATA Raid Card and its noticably slower than my other systems running a single 74gb Raptor but on my main system I care more about my data than my gaming systems.

Raid is for redudancy and protection.

 

[djnes]

Just please dont continue to spread the "myth" of its huge performance difference when frankly there is none what so ever unless your peforming very specific tasks.

Thank you very much.

LiquidTrance...if you have something to say to me...PM me. Don't act like a little kid with the sarcasm. No one finds it funny. Your going against accepted fact. Don't argue with me on this. E-mail Anand from Anandtech, and tell him his article is wrong. Again...I'll say it once more. Your childish bullshit probably won't be tlerated anymore in the public forums. If you have more ridiculousness to spit out of your mouth through your keyboard, do it through PM.

For those who want actual proof, here is the article...linked right to the conclusion.
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11

 

[GreNME]

The Anand article does a great job of showing the results where a RAID setup is not offering any speed increase. That it's being constantly ignored by people as an indication that the claims to the contrary are based on myth is astounding. However, allow me to give some brief explanation...

RAID was never meant to give anything any more speed, because that's not the point of what RAID is. RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Independent (or sometimes Inexpensive) Disks. The "redundant array" is the part that should really be stressed in this case, because this is exactly the reason to have RAID setups to begin with—redundancy.

One of the benefits of this redundancy in a server environment is an increased theoretical bandwidth for access at any given moment. What this means is that, for a server running RAID (0, 1, 5, etc.), more people logged onto this server will be able to access the contents of the disk at a faster rate. This allows the server to be able to handle more of a load with a higher guarantee of efficiency.

The thing is, this theoretical increase is often mistaken as applying exactly the same when used on a single (non-server) machine with a single user on a keyboard, mouse, and monitor connected directly to the box (as opposed to many network connections running terminal sessions). In fact, this is not true. In reality, disk access is going to be almost exactly the same as if there were only a single disk in the machine—this is why it's called a "redundant array" to begin with. That's the point. It is supposed to be so redundant that, even as John Smith sits at the machine itself and works on Project A, Jimmy Guy can be connected via a terminal session working on Project B (and, if he's really slick, Project C on the side), and Jane Doe can also be connected via the network and working on Project Z, with none of the three people experiencing a noticable degradation of performance while all working from the same disk at the same time in different ways.

This is what RAID is and what it does. This is what it was designed for. There is nothing in the mechanics of how RAID works that supports claims of increased disk performance in the manner that some have claimed in the thread. Djnes has already not only pointed this out, but shown an example where someone actually tested single drives next to redundant drives and saw negligible (and varied) differences. RAID does not increase your frames-per-second or web browser load times. With some specialized software (like high-end rendering, audio, and video editing software), a slight increase may be noticable, but not an extreme one. Regardless, RAID does not make your regular computing experience any faster.

 

[liquidtrance123]

Thank you very much.

LiquidTrance...if you have something to say to me...PM me. Don't act like a little kid with the sarcasm. No one finds it funny. Your going against accepted fact. Don't argue with me on this. E-mail Anand from Anandtech, and tell him his article is wrong. Again...I'll say it once more. Your childish bullshit probably won't be tlerated anymore in the public forums. If you have more ridiculousness to spit out of your mouth through your keyboard, do it through PM.

For those who want actual proof, here is the article...linked right to the conclusion.
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11

You might wanna take a step back there, all i ever said was, "man i love my raptors in raid 0."

then all of a sudden it became a HUGE deal to you that apparently somewhere in "man i love my raptors" meant that there was a HUGE performance difference and everyone should rush out right now and go buy some to put in raid 0.

So if someone somewhere can get "HUGE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE" out of "man i love my raptors in raid 0" then i guess your right. holy christ this place has gone to hell in a handbasket

 

[djnes]

holy christ this place has gone to hell in a handbasket

Only because of people like you who immediately degrade to childishness instead of having a friendly debate or conversation. Your several posts filled with sarcasm begged for a smartass return. And now that myself and GreNME proved a concept, your wanting to blow it off like nothing happened. Very very weak logic there. The problem with these boards is not me, my friend...it's you and the immaturity that follows when someone offers a differing opinion. No one is forcing you to stay here...this isn't your job. If you don't like being corrected, learn or go elsewhere.

 

[liquidtrance123]

Only because of people like you who immediately degrade to childishness instead of having a friendly debate or conversation. Your several posts filled with sarcasm begged for a smartass return. And now that myself and GreNME proved a concept, your wanting to blow it off like nothing happened. Very very weak logic there. The problem with these boards is not me, my friend...it's you and the immaturity that follows when someone offers a differing opinion. No one is forcing you to stay here...this isn't your job. If you don't like being corrected, learn or go elsewhere.

you forget this was after you automatically assumed from my simple post that i'm completely wrong and need to be immediately corrected for my "opinion"

sorry if my "opinion" about raid 0 is wrong i'll immediately correct my "opinion" to match your logic

 

[liquidtrance123]

Ya I pretty much have the same setup and I certainly notice a difference with raid 0 74gig raptors.

apparently we're wrong

 

[djnes]

you forget this was after you automatically assumed from my simple post that i'm completely wrong and need to be immediately corrected for my "opinion"

sorry if my "opinion" about raid 0 is wrong i'll immediately correct my "opinion" to match your logic

Opinions don't hold any water compared to tested fact. PM GreNME about that one. Any difference you "notice" is psychological. Now...do you want to continue the childish games, are do you want to admit you bought the myth we all did at one time, and have since learned the truth? It's your call, but I can assure yuo the mods aren't going to be happy with your games and sarcasm.

 

[liquidtrance123]

Opinions don't hold any water compared to tested fact. PM GreNME about that one. Any difference you "notice" is psychological. Now...do you want to continue the childish games, are do you want to admit you bought the myth we all did at one time, and have since learned the truth? It's your call, but I can assure yuo the mods aren't going to be happy with your games and sarcasm.

i'm sorry but no i'm not going to say i didn't notice a difference in speed because i did, if you don't want to believe me you go right ahead but just kuz you posted a link doesn' t mean i was "dreaming" when i noticed a difference.

 

[WaterIsTasty]

Why not just run the 2x120 out of raid? its not like you need lots of speed for file storage anyways...

 

[phaelinx]

Why not just run the 2x120 out of raid? its not like you need lots of speed for file storage anyways...

I currently am, after reading some of the colorful posts, I broke my raid0 array and now have both 120's as separate drives.. =/

 

[shieldforyoureyes]

The Anand article does a great job of showing the results where a RAID setup is not offering any speed increase. That it's being constantly ignored by people as an indication that the claims to the contrary are based on myth is astounding. However, allow me to give some brief explanation...

RAID was never meant to give anything any more speed, because that's not the point of what RAID is. RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Independent (or sometimes Inexpensive) Disks. The "redundant array" is the part that should really be stressed in this case, because this is exactly the reason to have RAID setups to begin withredundancy.

One of the benefits of this redundancy in a server environment is an increased theoretical bandwidth for access at any given moment. What this means is that, for a server running RAID (0, 1, 5, etc.), more people logged onto this server will be able to access the contents of the disk at a faster rate. This allows the server to be able to handle more of a load with a higher guarantee of efficiency.

The thing is, this theoretical increase is often mistaken as applying exactly the same when used on a single (non-server) machine with a single user on a keyboard, mouse, and monitor connected directly to the box (as opposed to many network connections running terminal sessions). In fact, this is not true. In reality, disk access is going to be almost exactly the same as if there were only a single disk in the machinethis is why it's called a "redundant array" to begin with. That's the point. It is supposed to be so redundant that, even as John Smith sits at the machine itself and works on Project A, Jimmy Guy can be connected via a terminal session working on Project B (and, if he's really slick, Project C on the side), and Jane Doe can also be connected via the network and working on Project Z, with none of the three people experiencing a noticable degradation of performance while all working from the same disk at the same time in different ways.

This is what RAID is and what it does. This is what it was designed for. There is nothing in the mechanics of how RAID works that supports claims of increased disk performance in the manner that some have claimed in the thread. Djnes has already not only pointed this out, but shown an example where someone actually tested single drives next to redundant drives and saw negligible (and varied) differences. RAID does not increase your frames-per-second or web browser load times. With some specialized software (like high-end rendering, audio, and video editing software), a slight increase may be noticable, but not an extreme one. Regardless, RAID does not make your regular computing experience any faster.

Ah.... I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
There's nothing about RAID that's better for multi-user loads
than single-user. The "Redundency" in "RAID" has to do with
fault-tolerance, not being able to handle a bigger load, or
"efficiency", whatever it is you mean by that.
RAID was always intended for speed as well as reliability, and
the "I" has always stood for "Inexpensive", because it was
designed to replace minicomputer/mainframe disks which were
obscenely expensive.
This is the paper that invented the concept, came up with the
term "RAID" and defined the basic RAID levels:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~garth/RAIDpaper/Patterson88.pdf
(Patterson is more well-known for being the researcher behind
the first RISC microprocessor, which was commercialized as
the SPARC architecture.)
Now, it may well be true that:
a. Most desktop users these days are not disk-io-bound, so
speeding up their disk system won't actually help anything.
b. The IO capability of PCs rather sucks, so most PCs are
probably maxed out just trying to deal with a single new
fast drive, and can't cope with a RAID array.
But neither of those things is a criticism of RAID itself.

 

[GreNME]

Ah.... I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

[edited]

There's nothing about RAID that's better for multi-user loads
than single-user. The "Redundency" in "RAID" has to do with
fault-tolerance, not being able to handle a bigger load, or
"efficiency", whatever it is you mean by that.

It's all about the I/O, which makes it optimal for multi-use situations, but the efficiency is in the I/O (and redundancy checking). In fact, efficiency is mentioned numerous times in your own link.

RAID was always intended for speed as well as reliability, and
the "I" has always stood for "Inexpensive", because it was
designed to replace minicomputer/mainframe disks which were
obscenely expensive.

It was not designed for replacing the single disk drive in terms of speed, it was designed for matching huge mainframes which are, oddly enough, multi-user environments. How interesting you don't know that about mainframes!

This is the paper that invented the concept, came up with the
term "RAID" and defined the basic RAID levels:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~garth/RAIDpaper/Patterson88.pdf
(Patterson is more well-known for being the researcher behind
the first RISC microprocessor, which was commercialized as
the SPARC architecture.)

Nothing in the paper, had you read it, contradicts what I said.

Now, it may well be true that:
a. Most desktop users these days are not disk-io-bound, so
speeding up their disk system won't actually help anything.
b. The IO capability of PCs rather sucks, so most PCs are
probably maxed out just trying to deal with a single new
fast drive, and can't cope with a RAID array.
But neither of those things is a criticism of RAID itself.

You don't get it, do you? Neither djnes nor myself have criticised RAID at all. We simply stated that suggesting it for speed—as in playing games, surfing the web, or any other sundry common task for a personal computer—is not based in fact. As I also stated in my post—had you been so kind as to have actually read it—that there do indeed exist cases where a machine would benefit from RAID (like a single rendering workstation, whether CAD, high-end video, or professional music studio). For the gamer or home user and even the typical office applications, RAID offers no speed benefits.

Now, when you can comment on what has actually been stated instead of arguing against what your incorrect assessment from not reading has stated, go ahead and get back to me.

 

[shieldforyoureyes]

RAID was designed to beat the speed & reliability of mainframe
drives, on mainframes, at a fraction of the cost. The Patterson
article criticizes mainframe & minicomputer drives for having
fallen behind in capacity and speed. They were not the goal
to reach, they were the problem to solve.
If you say "RAID doesn't give you speed" to refer to anything
other than the io speed of the RAID device, you're begging
to be misunderstood.
I'll accept that the comment about "redundency" and multi-user
environments was a very loosely worded description of IO issues
which I read too literally. Sorry.

 

[GreNME]

Well, glad that's cleared up.

 

[shieldforyoureyes]

The thing I don't get is the anti-RAID0 crowd never seems
to be against buying new fast drives. Doing RAID0 across
a couple of older 50 meg/sec drives "won't get you anything",
but replacing them with a newer 100 meg/sec drive is a
good idea?
Obviously there are other factors with new drives (price/
capacity), but would you claim that there is no performance
gain to be had for most PC users by replacing a 50 meg/sec
drive with a 100 meg/sec drive? (Or whatever speed the
latest & greatest is this week.)
(I would, I'm just asking because I never hear it.)

 

[GreNME]

Oh, I absolutely think getting newer and faster drives will increase performance, whether running a RAID setup or a single-disk setup. Also, for those interested in using RAID, the better the controller chip (or card, which has the chip on it), the better performance you will see.

 

[v3rt1g0]

I currently am, after reading some of the colorful posts, I broke my raid0 array and now have both 120's as separate drives.. =/

That's the last reason you shouldn't use raid. Don't let these bashers change your mind just because they're more rabid in their opinions.

Facts:
- RAID-0 is faster than a single disk, period.
The anandtech article exclusively used benchmarks that were hand picked to show no difference between a higher i/o array and a single drive. That much is obvious. It was aimed at "average home users". Any of those on these boards? Exactly. Certain people are just trying to make themselves feel better by trying to reinforce the rapidly-growing myth that a single disk is "just as fast". Don't believe a word of it.
- You will loose the data on both drives if one dies
- Your drive may "wear out" a little bit sooner in an array. Raptors have 5 year warranties, so who cares.

 

[shieldforyoureyes]

Oh, I absolutely think getting newer and faster drives will increase performance, whether running a RAID setup or a single-disk setup. Also, for those interested in using RAID, the better the controller chip (or card, which has the chip on it), the better performance you will see.

Disk performance, or user-experience performance? Would you
tell a gamer that going from a 50 meg/sec drive to a 100
meg/sec drive will affect their gaming experience in any
way?

 

[GreNME]

Disk performance, or user-experience performance? Would you
tell a gamer that going from a 50 meg/sec drive to a 100
meg/sec drive will affect their gaming experience in any
way?

User-experience performance will not be significant, though disk performance will be. The average gamer will generally see somewhere between a 2-5% increase, which may get them a frame or two per second more and a higher score on synthetic benchmarks, but not a noticably snappier experience. The improvement will be there, and can be measured, but not through playing Doom3.

The anandtech article exclusively used benchmarks that were hand picked to show no difference between a higher i/o array and a single drive. That much is obvious. It was aimed at "average home users". Any of those on these boards? Exactly. Certain people are just trying to make themselves feel better by trying to reinforce the rapidly-growing myth that a single disk is "just as fast". Don't believe a word of it.

Ha! Conspiracy theories abound!

 

[shieldforyoureyes]

There we go - my whole problem with this debate is that people
who think that increased disk performance will not help the
average desktop user are saying "RAID isn't fast!", which I
read as a statement about RAID, not about storage IO in
general.
Has anyone made a disk that does RAID5 across the platters
of a single drive yet?
There was one company that did RAID across tape drives, which
is kind of insane.

 

[liquidtrance123]

That's the last reason you shouldn't use raid. Don't let these bashers change your mind just because they're more rabid in their opinions.

Facts:
- RAID-0 is faster than a single disk, period.
The anandtech article exclusively used benchmarks that were hand picked to show no difference between a higher i/o array and a single drive. That much is obvious. It was aimed at "average home users". Any of those on these boards? Exactly. Certain people are just trying to make themselves feel better by trying to reinforce the rapidly-growing myth that a single disk is "just as fast". Don't believe a word of it.
- You will loose the data on both drives if one dies
- Your drive may "wear out" a little bit sooner in an array. Raptors have 5 year warranties, so who cares.

QFMFT
thank you, i thought i was the only one on these boards that felt this way

 

[liquidtrance123]

User-experience performance will not be significant, though disk performance will be. The average gamer will generally see somewhere between a 2-5% increase, which may get them a frame or two per second more and a higher score on synthetic benchmarks, but not a noticably snappier experience. The improvement will be there, and can be measured, but not through playing Doom3.


Ha! Conspiracy theories abound!

I agree overall performance won't be "astounding" in most cases, my point was the actual disk performance was much better with my Raid0 array than with only 1 drive. When i put my disks in Raid i wasn't looking for a FPS gain or anything like that, more so for just file transfers.

Plus bragging rights

 

[shieldforyoureyes]

It's not so much as "average home user" as "average home use".
If you're mostly gaming, you're probably not limited by disk
io speed. You may have a liquid-cooled, overclocked, dual
processor rig, and you might still not be maxing out your
disk speed.
Maybe.
My first response to any question about RAID is, "What are
you doing?".
I have a 30 disk fibre channel storage array* on my main
computer, and I use RAID heavily. It's good for me, it's
good for lots of people, it isn't good for everyone.
[* - Currently half-populated.]

 

[GreNME]

It's not so much as "average home user" as "average home use".
If you're mostly gaming, you're probably not limited by disk
io speed. You may have a liquid-cooled, overclocked, dual
processor rig, and you might still not be maxing out your
disk speed.
Maybe.
My first response to any question about RAID is, "What are
you doing?".
I have a 30 disk fibre channel storage array* on my main
computer, and I use RAID heavily. It's good for me, it's
good for lots of people, it isn't good for everyone.
[* - Currently half-populated.]

^ That is a good answer. (bolded text for emphasis)

Lots of rendering or dealing with huge I/O requirements—RAID will likely be helpful
Playing Battlefield: 1945 or Doom3—RAID will likely not make a difference
Using Office, surfing web, watching DVDs—RAID will likely not make a difference

And so on, and so forth...

 

[TheGameguru]

That's the last reason you shouldn't use raid. Don't let these bashers change your mind just because they're more rabid in their opinions.

Facts:
- RAID-0 is faster than a single disk, period.
The anandtech article exclusively used benchmarks that were hand picked to show no difference between a higher i/o array and a single drive. That much is obvious. It was aimed at "average home users". Any of those on these boards? Exactly. Certain people are just trying to make themselves feel better by trying to reinforce the rapidly-growing myth that a single disk is "just as fast". Don't believe a word of it.
- You will loose the data on both drives if one dies
- Your drive may "wear out" a little bit sooner in an array. Raptors have 5 year warranties, so who cares.

First you say that Raid 0 is faster than a single disk PERIOD.

Period means no exceptions.. then you quote where there are exceptions.

Which one is it? Is it faster or not?

Lets face it... if your a general user or a gamer one 74 gb Raptor is going to be slightly faster than 2 74gb Raptors in Raid 0.

The upsides outweigh the downsides.

i.e unless your doing very specific tasks where Raid 0 will show you tangible benefits (and there are some) its not worth the added risk/performance hit.

If you want to brag and boast because you think its cool then thats a whole other issue.

I'd like to think that here were a little beyond the average Maximum PC crowd..guess I'm wrong.

 

[GreNME]

I'd like to think that here were a little beyond the average Maximum PC crowd..guess I'm wrong.

I think that, in general, the [H] crowd is pretty damn decent. There are plenty of cats here that deserve mucho kudos for their contribution and efforts. On the other hand, just like anywhere, there are some who would rather take the easy road and regurgitate things they read on other sites without adequate research and testing (i.e.—"works for me!"). Don't let this lower your opinion of the [H] as a whole.

 

[phaelinx]

The only reason I broke my array was because of
1. I dont do heavy user load server stuff.
2. My 2 120gig hds are for storage and I only did it in the first place to have it seem cool, in which I didnt really see a performance increase so I broke the array.
3. If I did lose 1 hd..there goes all my porn..

I mainly wanna increase speed because I think I have a decent speed pc with nice ram and a nice cpu but I HATE sitting waiting for levels to load in games..thats the #1 thing I use this pc for..and having both those with a slow ass hd is my bottleneck in my system...

I've come to the conclusion that I want to get like a 15k rpm hd, but what one do you guys recommend?

 

[Snugglebear]

Seagate.

 

[Bling]

this is better than reading nerds post and fight over videocards

 

[Bling]

F-22 raptors are cool, so are the ones in Jurassic Park

 

[djnes]

First off, I'm not anti-RAID. It has it's advantages...IN THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT. For example, I have a Proliant server in my basement running a RAID5 array. I wouldn't dream of NOT using that. Second, I have a file server at work that I use to share point for my group. I am currently running 2 WD 120 GB drives in RAID1.

The point was RAID0 is pretty much useless in a desktop environment. Most sites and magazines are finally agreeing with this. The problem is, a lot of you refuse to read the articles or the tests,

This is what's known as a paradigm shift. For a while, everyone ho was a "power-user", me included, thought RAID0 was the best thing available for desktop drives. Now, some very respected web and print organizations are doing some "real world" testing, and finding out it's not any faster, and in some cases is slower than a single drive of the same kind. That brings me to the second flaw with many fo the arguments here. There's a huge difference between synthetic benchmarks and real-world benchmarks. If you don't believe me, ask around in the video card forum...or ask Kyle to discuss Futuremark.

I used to be one that said "I know my Raptors in RAID0 are faster, because I can feel it. I can just tell". As a test, I broke up my array, and used just one of the Raptors. I did not notice any differences in speed. I used to clean Ghost images to quickly switch back and forth between RAID0 and a single drive. It's at that moment you realize how bullshit and ridiculous it was that you could say it "feels" faster. That's as un-scientific as it gets.

Now we can continue to go back and forth on this. But the fact remains. Some of you are arguing with fact. It's been proven, and beaten down. The fact that many of us long-time members are trying to encourage others to not use RAID is because we don't enjoy seeing a ton of threads with people asking how to recover data from a failed array. Me personally, I never stored and valuable data on my RAID0 anyway. If your going to have a wonderful backup solution, and your willing to buck the trend, install RAID0 and be happy. Just don't take the foolish route by telling people it's faster....it's not.

Sticking a big red R on your car doesn't make it faster, and neither does RAID0 in a computer.

 

[liquidtrance123]

Now we can continue to go back and forth on this. But the fact remains. Some of you are arguing with fact. It's been proven, and beaten down. The fact that many of us long-time members are trying to encourage others to not use RAID is because we don't enjoy seeing a ton of threads with people asking how to recover data from a failed array. Me personally, I never stored and valuable data on my RAID0 anyway. If your going to have a wonderful backup solution, and your willing to buck the trend, install RAID0 and be happy. Just don't take the foolish route by telling people it's faster....it's not.

sorry that i "thought" i noticed a difference i'll be sure to run my "thoughts" by you whenever i get another one, to make sure if its "right" or not.


edit: just to make sure we're on the same page here, your telling me i was dreaming when i noticed a difference correct? Kuz i'm really tired of arguing whether or not i'm lying when i said i noticed a difference.

 

[djnes]

sorry that i "thought" i noticed a difference i'll be sure to run my "thoughts" by you whenever i get another one, to make sure if its "right" or not.


edit: just to make sure we're on the same page here, your telling me i was dreaming when i noticed a difference correct? Kuz i'm really tired of arguing whether or not i'm lying when i said i noticed a difference.

Since your obviously reading comprehension impaired, I will state it for you once again. Your "noticed" difference was purely psychological. We've all done, thinking it made a difference. Now that we've run the actual tests, we have scientific data to prove it's not. When we switch back to a single drive, we don't notice any decrease.

Now, as much as myself and plenty of others are having a good time reading your ridiculous responses, how much longer are going to argue with fact. In the science community, we often call it the most telling sign of ignorance, when someone continues to argue, despite being proven wrong. Roll your eyes...do whatever childish things you may....all we're going to do is laugh more. Of all my years here, you are clearly the most childish I've come across. Sarcasm was pretty funny when we were in 5th grade. Grow up, research a little, be a man to admit you were wrong, and go about your day.

 

[liquidtrance123]

Since your obviously reading comprehension impaired, I will state it for you once again. Your "noticed" difference was purely psychological. We've all done, thinking it made a difference. Now that we've run the actual tests, we have scientific data to prove it's not. When we switch back to a single drive, we don't notice any decrease.

Now, as much as myself and plenty of others are having a good time reading your ridiculous responses, how much longer are going to argue with fact. In the science community, we often call it the most telling sign of ignorance, when someone continues to argue, despite being proven wrong. Roll your eyes...do whatever childish things you may....all we're going to do is laugh more. Of all my years here, you are clearly the most childish I've come across. Sarcasm was pretty funny when we were in 5th grade. Grow up, research a little, be a man to admit you were wrong, and go about your day.

say and believe what you will, but i DID notice a difference from 1 drive to 2. If you wanna sit here and argue till we're both blue in the face thats fine. But i'm not going to tell you i didn't Notice a difference. If you wanna say i'm childish for trying to say i noticed a difference thats fine. But i will not sit here and say your right and i didn't notice a difference in the raid. I'm now done with this thread and your going on my ignore list as i don't need to listen to people tell me what i did and didn't experience.