What's faster - single 10,000rpm Raptor or 2 7200rpm Caviars in Raid 0

[irfy]

I would go for 2 X Hitachi T7K250 SATAII Raid 0

Raptors are tooo expensive and not much storage compared to 500GB

[davidhammock200]

now, I use WD Raptor for my boot drive,many of you recommend me to boot from WDRaptor 10.000rpm,

but in my test using HD Tach 3 shows that 2x160GB Hitachi Desktar T7K250 7200rpm faster then single 74GB WD Raptor 10.000rpm, when I work with MS Excel, I save my work/document faster when I use 2x160GB Hitachi (raid0) compare with single WD Raptor( is this call real world ? ) , so please tell me more, is the bench not accurate ?

RAID 0 will win all of the benchmarks, that is not "real world". Try booting from each & time it yourself.

[zungkono]

RAID 0 will win all of the benchmarks, that is not "real world". Try booting from each & time it yourself.

 

this is very interesting, cause I use raptor for booting,i don't know how fast raid0 for booting, if I try it means that I have install it again and I have to transfer the data to another drive. But when I save my Excel documents ( I open about 5 files or more and linked each other) then I cole all files, with raid0 I feel faster then first time I use single Raptor, this is very weard/strange.

 

Booting with raptor faster then raid0 ? just booting or? please help me so I can understand well, thank you.

[Smoken Joe]

Well I dont have a raptor but I went first to two drives in raid 0 and it seemed to boot much faster than 1 ATA. 4 seemed even faster though that is more than 4 times the likluhood of one drive failing. It is cloce to instant if everything is working right. I would have ben thrilled with the improvement of just 2 in raid 0 though.

[zungkono]

I try to copy 3 files = 3.13GB from a folder to another in the same HDD then I count it :

 

1x74GB WD Raptor = 1m.59s.96 (use space 20GB)

2x160GB Hitachi Desktar = 1m.35.00 Partition 1 - 1/2 x 320GB = 160GB (use space 37GB)

2x160GB Hitachi Desktar = 2m.40.00 Partition 2 - 1/2 x 320GB = 160GB (use space 77GB)

 

 

Is the different capacity of the HDD makes different result?

[davidhammock200]

Non-SCSI RAID 0 will be faster when reading & writing large continious files,

where seek time is not a major consideration.

 

The M$ OS's (XP, W2K, etc) are not read as a large continious file,

bits & pieces are pulled from hunderds/thousands of different files,

so seek time is very important.

 

The 10,000RPM Raptors have a much faster seek time than any 7200RPM HDD.

Non-SCSI Raid 0 does not improve seek time, if fact it makes to slightly slower,

as the files must be found on all of the different HDD's in the array.

 

Dave

[zungkono]

Non-SCSI RAID 0 will be faster when reading & writing large continious files,

where seek time is not a major consideration.

 

The M$ OS's (XP, W2K, etc) are not read as a large continious file,

bits & pieces are pulled from hunderds/thousands of different files,

so seek time is very important.

 

The 10,000RPM Raptors have a much faster seek time than any 7200RPM HDD.

Non-SCSI Raid 0 does not improve seek time, if fact it makes to slightly slower,

as the files must be found on all of the different HDD's in the array.

 

Dave

 

so it means that when booting single WD Raptor faster then raid0 Hitachi? but slower when reading/opening application and writing/saving/copying data ?

[davidhammock200]

so it means that when booting single WD Raptor faster then raid0 Hitachi? but slower when reading/opening application and writing/saving/copying data ?

Actually the larger the files the greater the RAID 0 advantage.

Video, audio, photoshop, multimedia, CAD & other very large (100MB+) files gain the most.

[zungkono]

Actually the larger the files the greater the RAID 0 advantage.

Video, audio, photoshop, multimedia, CAD & other very large (100MB+) files gain the most.

 

ok, now I understand :

1. entering the windows --> faster using single WD Raptor

2. the data effectively/faster using/locate in raid0

now, how about the program it self, like ms excel, adobe, and etc

if we open the program, is it faster if I place it in single HDD or raid0 HDD?

[davidhammock200]

ok, now I understand :

1. entering the windows --> faster using single WD Raptor

2. the data effectively/faster using/locate in raid0

now, how about the program it self, like ms excel, adobe, and etc

if we open the program, is it faster if I place it in single HDD or raid0 HDD?

All software should go where the OS goes, on the 10,000RPM Raptor,

because just like the OS, it loads bits & pieces from hundreds of different files, so seek time is important.

 

Now with all/most of your data on the RAID 0 array, you need to do frequent back-ups,

because if you lose one HDD, you lose ALL of your data.

[zungkono]

All software should go where the OS goes, on the 10,000RPM Raptor,

because just like the OS, it loads bits & pieces from hundreds of different files, so seek time is important.

 

Now with all/most of your data on the RAID 0 array, you need to do frequent back-ups,

because if you lose one HDD, you lose ALL of your data.

 

this time I use :

c:/ WD Raptor for boot device and ofcourse program file

d:/ CDRW

e:/ Hitachi Raid0 Part1 as Data

f:/ Hitachi Raid0 Part2 as Data

 

first time after instalation, My document (worksheet) default in C:/ then I move it in E:/ Hitachi Raid0, I feel faster then before, if I click shortcut to Excel's worksheet, it opened faster, that is why I argue that raid0 better then single raptor, but now I understand maybe if the OS and prog file in Raid0 it can't run faster then in single raptor

So the combination must be use, but I know using raid0 means we take risk of the data

[Smoken Joe]

Here is what I based my decision on to some extent: http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.ph...gleDriveVsRaid0

 

Look at bootmark 2002 288 vs 474 for Raid 0. I want ablt to find many other attempts to actualy measure Raid effectvevness. Of cource for many apps raid 0 hardly helps at all such as compressed game level files.