on a Pentium III line your maximum bandwidth from your north to south bridge is limited to 266MB/s on most of the motherboard... it is shared between your nework(100Mb, that's 10MB), Sound card, and probably your TV tuner. you'll be happy if the hard disk get 100MB/s from the north to south bridge link itself..

no thanks.. i'd rather have RAID 5... from the article, the only thing that benifits from the extra bandwidth is from large file transfer... but what are you transftering too? USB 2 or Firewire external hard disk can only give you at most 40 Meg a second. Your network 100MB/s base can give you only 10 meg per second. same goes for your CD/DVD writter... What's the point of having a fast connection when you can't use it? Its like driving a ferrari F1 car on the normal roads..

Hmm.. i don't know.. my SATA windows XP SP1 boots up pretty snappy.. last count was 5 seconds.. As for championship manager.. well i can't comment about that cause i've never played that before..

Probably i should make it clearer about my point on posting this article. I'm acctually annoyed with people recomending RAID-0 for their main hard drive, alot of benchmark shows a little or litterally no improvement in performance (except benchmarking software). What you have is twice the probability of data lost. I've lost one seagate hard disk due to heat before and i know how pissed off i was with that...

Saving 10 seconds off loading your games is not a good enough excuse to have a twice the chance of 5 hours of installing reconfiguring, re downloading , and repatching the systems..

if you are refering to MS windows system, you should check out how to make unattended winXP/2000 installation complete with patches and software that can used to restore your system in less than an hour. just remember not to save your data on a raid0 setup

hey so is mine!!! but, it's not that bad. i mean, mostly used to store/backup their data. something akin to a file server, but cheaper alternative!

As for RAID0, it all boils down to, do you feel for THE NEED FOR SPEED???
but in all seriousness, unless you're dealing with extermely huge files, which majority don't, RAID0 is pretty usesless in todays world!
i mean, most of us just use our office pc for office productivity stuff. how many needs to open > 100megs files? i would say very few. proly can count too!!!
Added with the extremely cheap cost of hdd nowadays, RAID5 is always the better option...

But this is not to say RAID0 isn't really what it claims. Depends on hdd's and how/what you use it for... in short, depends on scenario.

u only need 3 hdd to do raid 5...
if u have 4 hdd, better option go for multi-level raid like 0+1.
bcoz raid 5 will have deep impact in random write performance...
but i dun think intel ich5r can do the above...

And let me raise you this link..

RAID-0 FAQ

Filesystems also matter. That's why some ppl prefer XFS over ReiserFS for their Linux rig. I deal with huge files where I worked last time. We can churn out simulation data in files in the order of gigabytes.

wow, gigs of data..where did you work last time?

I was a support engineer for some engineering software. It simulates fluid flow and heat transfer. One class of phenomena to be simulated is the 'transient' phenomena, where the system response changes with time (and with possibly time-dependent boundary conditions). To simulate such cases, 'snapshots' of the the system (not the PC!) condition have to be saved and many snapshots are needed to visualise how it changes with time.... thus the data output is in gigs. Compression like gzip or bzip can reduce it to 75% or 50% of its size but I'd rather just waste more CDs to backup than waiting past punch-out time to go home. Imagine the frustration coming in to work next morning to find that your simulation has kapoot overnight because an ancient UNIX filesystem cannot support files larger than 2GB... I moved on to Linux afterwards and the UNIX machines became legacy devices to help troubleshoot customer problems only.