Originally Posted by S_V™
Sorry ?, Raid will not eat CPU cycles. That's not at all.. I have been using since 2004 and never seen RAID inbuilt eating CPU resources or cycles.. i always prefer RAID than normal.... RAID 1 is not dangerous at all... RAID 0 is somewhat dangerous but it's very fast...
Only Headache will be If you change from RAID to IDE/AHCI.. You have to take backup if not the data will destroy same goes with IDE/AHCI to RAID...
snycback and synctoy are both works well but very rare at different networks.. These work but sometimes they keep hanging or keep searching for files while transferring data...
From how you speak of SyncBack I know you'v never used it before - or at least some of the more recent versions. SyncBack does what I consider a 'pre run' or 'analysis' where it scans your folders to backup/sync/mirror/etc and tells you whats going to change. everything is then queued up, compressed if asked to, and xfred on the fly. I do network backups as well and it will load my NIC at 60-100% usage easily at home. At work it locks in at 100% gigabit speed (125MBPS ish) given they use different(better) NICs..
As far as RAID and CPU - it depends on the set up really. I've read and heard
but never had experience with a set up that will rely on the CPU to carry out parity/stripping functions. I realize nowadays its all done via the integrated controllers (ICH10R, LSI chips, etc) to offload the CPU.
RAID 1 does have quite a bit of overhead for write speeds though due to parity. I like RAID 5 as its a combo of stripping and parityEdited by OC96junkie - 1/13/11 at 1:42am