Raid Array: Faster Startup Times?

Technically I'm no candidate for Raid0: not much Photoshopping,
no video editing....

But I'm a closet type A and the faster my applications (like MS
Word....) start up, the less stressed-out I am.

If I go to Raid0, will I notice the diff for that kind of use?

If so, are 4 drives twice as fast as two?

What about block size? 128kb the fastest?
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Technically I'm no candidate for Raid0: not much Photoshopping,
> no video editing....
>
> But I'm a closet type A and the faster my applications (like MS
> Word....) start up, the less stressed-out I am.
>
> If I go to Raid0, will I notice the diff for that kind of use?
>
> If so, are 4 drives twice as fast as two?
>
> What about block size? 128kb the fastest?

Try an article like this. They used a Gigabyte iRAM device,
and tested to see how much performance could be improved.
Now, compared to your RAID0 idea, the iRAM has close to
zero seek time. There may be another review or two around,
where someone used the iRAM in a RAID array, but the iRAM
doesn't work properly with hardware RAID cards (because
the SATA emulation isn't good enough). It does work with
some Southbridge RAID interfaces. Someone over on 2cpu.com
tested a handful of iRAMs, on some hardware RAID cards.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480

So a RAID0 made from hard drives, will give less of a
boost than the charts in that article, due to seek time
not changing. If the operation you're trying to speed
up, is dominated by head movement (seek), then RAID0
won't help with that. RAID0 is going to help a lot with
Photoshop read/write times, or scratch disk operation.

Paul

"(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Technically I'm no candidate for Raid0: not much Photoshopping,
> no video editing....
>
> But I'm a closet type A and the faster my applications (like MS
> Word....) start up, the less stressed-out I am.
>
> If I go to Raid0, will I notice the diff for that kind of use?
>
> If so, are 4 drives twice as fast as two?
>
> What about block size? 128kb the fastest?
> --
> PeteCresswell
>
Pete,

Slightly off topic reply but if you want fast start up for Office 2007 then
try OpenOffice. Its free, can open and edit any MS Office doc and is very
fast to open.

regards,

Beemer

Per Beemer:
>Slightly off topic reply but if you want fast start up for Office 2007 then
>try OpenOffice. Its free, can open and edit any MS Office doc and is very
>fast to open.

Unfortunately, I make my living developing apps for the Dark
Side.... -)
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Per Beemer:
>>Slightly off topic reply but if you want fast start up for Office 2007
>>then
>>try OpenOffice. Its free, can open and edit any MS Office doc and is
>>very
>>fast to open.
>
> Unfortunately, I make my living developing apps for the Dark
> Side.... -)
> --
> PeteCresswell
>

Pete,

You might want to consider using 4GB (3.4GB 32 bit windows) memory and no
page file or using a usb flash memory stick for the pagefile.

regards,

Beemer

Beemer wrote:
> "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Per Beemer:
>>> Slightly off topic reply but if you want fast start up for Office 2007
>>> then
>>> try OpenOffice. Its free, can open and edit any MS Office doc and is
>>> very
>>> fast to open.
>> Unfortunately, I make my living developing apps for the Dark
>> Side.... -)
>> --
>> PeteCresswell
>>
>
> Pete,
>
> You might want to consider using 4GB (3.4GB 32 bit windows) memory and no
> page file or using a usb flash memory stick for the pagefile.
>
> regards,
>
> Beemer
>
>
Yes! I agree with Open Office, HOWEVER using a fast memory stick -
Readyboost DOES make apps that you use often, open faster. I give a tick
to MS for that feature.

cheers
Gorby