Hello,I'm configuring a new system which will be used for FS9 and FSX only. Is there a significant performance advantage in two Raptor (10,000 rpm) drives in RAID 0 over a single 7200 rpm SATA drive or for that matter a single Raptor drive. And if two are better, how do I back them up conveniently? Add a third 7200 rpm SATA drive for back-up and storage?This is very confusing to me so I would appreciate all help and suggestions.ThanksJeb

This might go on a bit, but you are asking incompatible questions.RAID 0 is designed for performance where data is stripped ontomore than 1 disk. The basis is that disk drive read/write isquite slow, so using 2 will near double the performance of a disk.The problem is that for FS9/X most of the file access is forsmall textures - I have some 90,000 files for my fs9, whereas RAID 0 is designed for large file read/write access. There is actually a performance hit for small files as the 2 disks mustsynchronise before they can start to read/write, then they getinto their stride and read/write about twice the speed. The problemis that in FS9/X the 2 disks will never get into their stride with all the small files. You only get the synchronisation hit. Next, why the alternative of 2 raptor (10,000) or the 7000 SATA. Thisis odd for me. The 10,000 disk will be fast cos it can read/writesustained rates 10/7 faster than the 7,000. Completely separateis the SATA interface - which allows much faster burst cache read/write over PATA (parallel). These 2 things are different. If youcan fit a SATA 7000 disk then you can only fit a SATA any disk - itis a function of your mother board interfaces - you either have SATAor not.The best options is...Don't use RAID for FS9/X cos of the small file sizes.use 2 raptor disks (SATA).use 1 disk for OS + page file and all the other none FS dataUse disk 2 for FS only. This will give you fast read of FS files, but also allow separateread/write of OS files simultaneously. Of course, multiple processorsor hyperthreading will held in this case so you don't get IO blockson a processor.Tom

Thanks Tom that helps alot...I'm not really sure I understand the last sentence: "Of course, multiple processorsor hyperthreading will held in this case so you don't get IO blockson a processor." Is that good or bad?One last question. To back-up the FS files, can I use another slower HD like a 250 0r 500 gig @ 7200 rpm. You've made this much clearer for me. Much thanks!!!Jeb

And put a page file on both drives - the OS will use the one on the least active I/O depending on what you are doing.

IOblock : An IO block is when a process requires data from some device buthas to wait for this device to return the data. Thismight be RAM, GPU-RAM or disk. A single process cannot do anythingelse while waiting for this data. Of course, intel use task prediction where a request for data canbe predicted. The disk can cache data in its memory if it correctly identifies data you might want next (ie sequential read of large file). A good program can use "threads" so it can do multiple things whilewaiting for data. Since FS9/X spends much of its time fetching textures and sendingthem to the GPU through the FSB then there will be issues of IO blocking - this tends to be seen as stutters. Also blurries in FS9and FSX-SP1 are the result of texture throughput overload. Although all OS are multi-threading - the only thread you are interestedin is the flight simulator ! The use of hyperthreaded processors (and RAM-memory) as well as Dual/Quad chips can help to somedegree - though not a complete solution.I am not sure about distributing the page file on multiple disks - you will be up against disk synchronization problems again - mostpages of memory will be dependent - you need pages 1-10 since thisis where the textures are held. If these are multiple disks, theyhave dependent order which could be caught up in the seek time foreach disk.