Comments

PeterDuke wrote on 7/8/2010, 11:30 PM
I did have an OCZ SSD installed in another machine before the machine died. I did some read and write speed tests at the time but can't find them now. I recall that it was slower than a normal disk to write to and faster than RAID 0 to read from, but the differences were not mind blowing.
PeterDuke wrote on 7/8/2010, 11:40 PM
See the recent thread on the need (or lack thereof) for RAID in editing HD material. For direct rendering of HD material, an ordinary disk is fast enough. For smooth viewing low compressed or non-compressed material, including HD translated to Cineform, disk speed is more of an issue. General housekeeping involving moving video files around would also benefit from fast drives.
evm wrote on 7/9/2010, 7:41 AM
Thanks for the reply. I did read the entire thread you mentioned. A lot of the conversation had me scratching my head. I need to find some bench mark tests. I would never use anything other than a RAID0 setup for performance. RAID controllers on mother boards are useless, they don't improve performance all that much compared to dedicated RAID controllers.
R0cky wrote on 7/9/2010, 8:04 AM
My experience with integrated mobo RAID controllers has been dismal. Both nvidia and intel ones did not work, that is, they caused system failures rather then give the benefits of RAID.

nvidia - caused a mysterious system failure error message not repairable by new drives or reinstalling XP.
intel - kept calling new drives bad needing replacement. In this case I bought an Adaptec card and the system is working just great and those drives the intel controller thought were bad have been running great for 9 months or so. I am running RAID10 on my media drive and have seen sustained read performance of over 200 MBytes/sec.