Originally Posted by LiNERROR
if speed isn't your primary concern you can get a raid 5 controller on the cheap... it won't be blistering fast, but it can still provide you fault tolerance...
Speed is good, that's why I am going RAID 0, what I'm thinking is that I also want them to be quiet. If not, I would just buy a Raptor. RAID 5 would be nice, but without a high-end controller I'm not even considering it. Still, I got a 450â‚¬ refund from some taxes I've paid a few months ago, maybe I'll squeeze the RAID 5 controller in the holiday expenses
Originally Posted by Antec900_2007
I've got 3 Samsungs in my other rig.160GB,250GB,and a 500GB.All three are quiet,fast,cool running,and very reliable!I've a Seagate 80GB 7200.10 in my Antec900 for now until I order a 320GB or 500GB Drive.The Seagate is quiet and run's cool too.What ever you do;if you buy Seagate.Don't get any of the 7200.9 models.Thats the older tech.The 7200.10's are better!
I've just received an offer for the 80GB Seagates: 25â‚¬!!! They're dead cheap (7200.10 also). Are they really that quiet? I'm asking because although my 7200.10 250GB is quiet enough, the others in the series don't always follow the rule.
Originally Posted by laboitenoire
I've heard quite a few drives over the years. In my experience, the order of how quiet they were went like this:
4. Western Digital
Seagate and Hitachi tend to have faster access times than the rest of the brands. Also, why are you buying 8 MB cache? The jump from 8 MB to 16 MB is really noticeable.
I didn't know it's that big of a difference, frankly I've jumped from 2 to 16MB directly, I didn't play with the 8 megs.
What do you think, is it that much of a difference between 8 and 16 megs of buffer? I see it's double, it should be better, but by how much? A 16 megs buffer imply a 250HDD at the very least which costs a bit more.