we all need that speed =c
Need and could use... is two different things. I'm still mad the internet went backwards in terms of megabytes vs megabits...and nobody noticed or complains. Basically because some people decided we didn't need that much speed...it's so frustrating when i want to watch HD videos...and neither the provider or my isp doesn't have the proper bandwidth to play it correctly.
So i download it, on my 5400rpm HD which is also inadequate...sigh
lets get a theoretical number here...for the HD's
If one normally gets 20-40MB/s random read and write...which is closest to actual users during multitasking. These ssd's are not far from this base number.
you'd get 80-160MB/s constant, in theory. This still doesn't meet basic needs for any pc user. But it works. And sure beats waiting around for one drive. If your lucky the HD's will have their own controllers, and won't hog cpu cycles. The os can use all of that up by itself if this was the drive the os was installed on!
You could play 3 or 4 or more HD videos and 320bit data rate mp3's at the same time from disk. depending on your cpu and gfx setup. with almost no hiccups. And record a few RAW music files as well. You can easily do this from the net, because your only getting 600-800kbps per video or mp3. And maybe a 10kb-100kb cache file is all that hits your HD. Mostly useing ram,cpu and gfx there.
The other need, these days that would be met by doing something like this... Is you could play multiple files while also streaming, uploading or downloading the exact same file.
Another possibility of a solved need. Loads of ram... the peak speeds of such a setup could exceed 2GBs. This is approaching the speed of ram. If only we could tell windows to use it in such a way. There are some instances even with 40+ Gigs of ram...that it gets fully used, and hangs and bottlenecks happen. Simply adds more bandwidth adding page files to each drive.
Try all that with a single drive...and you may end up getting a file in use or does not exist error. You may even crash =c
What would cause a raid 0 to fail?? other then the HD itself failing?
Could this be corrected by haveing a separate raid 1 array of 4 drives? 8 in total?