OldGuy Posted July 29, 2006 Posted July 29, 2006 Since adding two more 250gb drives in RAID 0 I really don't see (or feel) much difference from running two of these in RAID 0...I'm thinking the smart thing would be to run 0+1...in doing so would it be best to hook up a PATA drive temporarily, format the drives and also create a smaller partition, say 20 to 40 gigs for OS and programs? Utilize the remainder for storage? 250gb is plenty for me (A terabyte gone to waste I know, but not really needed). I just want this particular rig to be as fast as it can be... Any tips from the storage gods???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebdoradz Posted July 30, 2006 Posted July 30, 2006 2-3 Hitachi 80Gb sata II they seems to be the best HDD for raid performance, if you dont have the $ for raptors Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
placenta Posted August 6, 2006 Posted August 6, 2006 i posted elsewhere, then found this thread. compare my single raptor to my regular sata in RAID 0 Single raptor Dual WD 320Gb in RAID 0 using Silicon Image controller: Dual WD 320Gb in RAID 0 using Nvidia Nforce controller: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPDMF Posted August 6, 2006 Posted August 6, 2006 Any two Satas in RAID0 will beat a single Raptor. 2 Raptors in RAID0 isn't much faster than standard satas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
placenta Posted August 6, 2006 Posted August 6, 2006 Any two Satas in RAID0 will beat a single Raptor. 2 Raptors in RAID0 isn't much faster than standard satas. So, which one would you personally choose between the choices above. some people always stick with the better access time of the raptor. But the transfer rates are so much better on the RAID setup.. I would think that might help in loading games and things like that, since I only have 1GB of ram. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorrento Posted August 6, 2006 Posted August 6, 2006 1 Raptor = 2 SATA2 RAID-0 2 Raptor RAID-0 = 4 SATA2 RAID-0 in my opinion at least... size and price make SATA2 better than Raptors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suspekt Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 Any two Satas in RAID0 will beat a single Raptor. 2 Raptors in RAID0 isn't much faster than standard satas. do you mean "2 raptors in RAID0 isn't much faster than 2 standard satas in RAID-0" ? or that 2 Raptors in RAID-0 isn't faster than any one sata drive ? If the latter, the statement is faulty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 do you mean "2 raptors in RAID0 isn't much faster than 2 standard satas in RAID-0" ? or that 2 Raptors in RAID-0 isn't faster than any one sata drive ? If the latter, the statement is faulty For the record. Two Raptor drives in RAID-0 are faster than any two 7200RPM drives. The statement was "2 Raptors in RAID0 isn't much faster than standard satas." which is absolutely true. While you can use synthetic benchmarks to prove the Raptor array is faster and you can measure the difference in load times with real applications, the reality is that a Raptor array is not much faster than an array of 7200RPM drives. Spending the extra money to get an array that's a few percentage points faster becomes a question of value. This is where many people start to question the value of having Raptors. If money is no object and having the very fastest array is your ultimate goal, Raptors are the only game in town. If you don't mind being behind the Raptors by a few percentage points but save half the money, get some Seagate 7200.10 drives which are the new performance leader or the Hitachi 80GB SATA 3Gbps drives which have the best bang for your bucks. All of these statements are proven in this thread. Take the time to compare the results provided by countless forum members. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suspekt Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 You make it sound that there is no difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 You make it sound that there is no difference. Well, it would be different if I had said there was no difference but I didn't. Doubling the cost for even a 10% gain is significant while increasing from 130MBsec to 143MBsec isn't that great of a difference in "real world" performance. Once you get to a certain level, increases become limited by the rest of the bandwidth chain. That's why despite huge benchmark scores, early RAID-0 arrays added little to "real world" performance until CPU and memory performance caught up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeWho Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 Hey, Wekll after reading this I checked my raid speed and was NOT HAPPY. So I asked here on the form what to do. I took the advice and ran with it and WOW what a differance it made. How do these numbers look? http://teamvirtel.aowc.net/user/43619/imag...amfront/dad.JPG Thanks Again sound98, mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeWho Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 http://teamvirtel.aowc.net/user/43619/imag...amfront/dad.JPG here it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now