Hiya's folks,
I'm getting a new 250gb hd and I'm planning on striping my twin samsung 160gb's in a RAID0 array.
My plan is to put my documents, music, videos, my classic pr0n (not really, just wanted to get that out of the way early in the thread) the OSes (XP/Ubuntu) on the 250, and put my games and my windows swap file on the array.
This should result in an ideal setup--putting the programs that need constant/semi-constant fetching on the array and leaving the OS and stuff I don't want to lose on the more reliable, new, and non-raided 250?
Thoughts?
One thing that bothers me: fitness/performance according to SMART on one drive is rated at 99/100%, the other is rated 90/90%. They're both about two years old; one did "pass" an unscheduled drop check during install...
Not exactly sure what that means in terms of "your hd will make poopie in the bed in _______ hours", my understanding is that these ratings are sort of a nebulous value and not necessarily a predictor of hd failure... (?)
I'm getting a new 250gb hd and I'm planning on striping my twin samsung 160gb's in a RAID0 array.
My plan is to put my documents, music, videos, my classic pr0n (not really, just wanted to get that out of the way early in the thread) the OSes (XP/Ubuntu) on the 250, and put my games and my windows swap file on the array.
This should result in an ideal setup--putting the programs that need constant/semi-constant fetching on the array and leaving the OS and stuff I don't want to lose on the more reliable, new, and non-raided 250?
Thoughts?
One thing that bothers me: fitness/performance according to SMART on one drive is rated at 99/100%, the other is rated 90/90%. They're both about two years old; one did "pass" an unscheduled drop check during install...
Not exactly sure what that means in terms of "your hd will make poopie in the bed in _______ hours", my understanding is that these ratings are sort of a nebulous value and not necessarily a predictor of hd failure... (?)
Comment