if you're bored, you could partition the 1TB into a pair of 500GB, and do a RAID10. it would still be an utter waste of time and money, but it's something you could try to do.
Yes. You can't write to a RAID 1 array at a speed greater than that of the slowest disk. It makes sense if you think about it.
So there is no caching magic of any sort that can make this work? Is it possible to make it so that it will run at the speed of raid 0 ssd, and it will automatically slowly feed it to the HDD?
if you're bored, you could partition the 1TB into a pair of 500GB, and do a RAID10. it would still be an utter waste of time and money, but it's something you could try to do.
Its correct to assume that SSD partitioned into two partitions in RAID 0 will run at the same speed at if was one partition right?
Yes. You can't write to a RAID 1 array at a speed greater than that of the slowest disk. It makes sense if you think about it.
So there is no caching magic of any sort that can make this work? Is it possible to make it so that it will run at the speed of raid 0 ssd, and it will automatically slowly feed it to the HDD?
i would guess it would only do so for the first few megs of data, whatever the HDD can store in its own cache. after that, you'd likely be back at square one.
Andre Hsu :
giantbucket :
if you're bored, you could partition the 1TB into a pair of 500GB, and do a RAID10. it would still be an utter waste of time and money, but it's something you could try to do.
Its correct to assume that SSD partitioned into two partitions in RAID 0 will run at the same speed at if was one partition right?
i don't know this for a fact, but i would assume so. i think that's how the large SSDs work in a way, they write to more chips in parallel.