Which will be faster; 2 7200RPM HDD's in RAID 0, or a 10,000RPM HDD. Anyone have a link to solid proof, or just guessing?
michinmuri
Quote:
Faster? All Raid will help is large sequential reads/writes like transferring massive video files around. If you're expecting improved access times or your games to load faster then you're kidding yourself. With that said, I'd much rather have the fastest 10krpm drive over the fastest 7200 rpm drives in Raid.
Quote:
Probably gonna go here. I am more about gaming than transferring huge files. Just to be a weirdo (and if I can not break my bank) I will RAID 0 two V-raptors, maybe 3?
The 10000 RPM drive is more reliable
As if you have 2 hardrive in a array, and one of them fails all you're data is lost forever
As if you have 2 hardrive in a array, and one of them fails all you're data is lost forever
Why don't you just get an ssd instead? Costs about the same as 10K drives last time I checked... Just grab the crucial C300 128gb or vertex2 120gb and call it a day
![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
maybe 3 of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136762&cm_re=raptor-_-22-136-762-_-Product although i doubt the rest of your system could keep up
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I understand this and am ok with that outcome. The risk is worth the reward.
Quote:
As long long as that is the case then I am going here. Never thought of even looking due to price.Originally Posted by asuindasun;11925442
Why don't you just get an ssd instead? Costs about the same as 10K drives last time I checked... Just grab the crucial C300 128gb or vertex2 120gb and call it a day![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
Quote:
I can not fill one 320GB HDD so why 3 of these, lol?
So this...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227551
...will be faster than 2-3 ofthese in RAID 0???
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136296
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227551
...will be faster than 2-3 ofthese in RAID 0???
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136296
Technically Yes, but remember you are getting a lot less space for games and what ever else. Its faster but more limited on space, while the others would be slower but have a lot more space.
Quote:
But if you have one 10,000 RPM drive and it fails, your data is still all gone....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowOfDeath  The 10000 RPM drive is more reliable As if you have 2 hardrive in a array, and one of them fails all you're data is lost forever |
Define faster..
RAID drives would have higher sequential reads.
10k drive would have faster seek time.
General windows usability will feel faster on a 10k drive but your transfers would be slower.
SSD would feel the fastest out of all options due to a ~0.1 ms seek time.
You might be able to build an array with a higher sequential read/write, but it's going to feel sluggish comparatively as the potential disk IOPS are much lower on mechanical drives.
RAID drives would have higher sequential reads.
10k drive would have faster seek time.
General windows usability will feel faster on a 10k drive but your transfers would be slower.
SSD would feel the fastest out of all options due to a ~0.1 ms seek time.
You might be able to build an array with a higher sequential read/write, but it's going to feel sluggish comparatively as the potential disk IOPS are much lower on mechanical drives.
A good 7200.10 HDD nearly matches the Velociraptors in sequential read/writes so two 72.10 drives in RAID will be it in that regard.
But for Random IOPS, the 10k drives will be faster.
But for Random IOPS, the 10k drives will be faster.
10K drives aren't very impressive in actual transfer rates; a Green drive has a higher sustained read/write speed, but for general use, I'm happy with a Raptor (Velociraptors no doubt will be faster. 2.5in > 3.5in). SSD's WOULD be the best option though, you get the very best of both worlds, only downside is the price premium over mechanical drives
![frown.gif]( "frown.gif")
Quote:
haha if the single 10k drive fails your data is also lost.
The 10k will have a quicker access time but the RAID 0 drives will be faster in everything else.
Originally Posted by ShadowOfDeath The 10000 RPM drive is more reliable As if you have 2 hardrive in a array, and one of them fails all you're data is lost forever |
The 10k will have a quicker access time but the RAID 0 drives will be faster in everything else.
Quote:
7200 drives will lose every time with regards to rotational delay against a 10k RPM device.
Simply putting drives in RAID does not decrease this value.
Originally Posted by nintari wouldnt 2x 7200 rpm with the right drives short stroked on a good controller be faster in everything compared to a single raptor? (which BTW I'll prob have 3x 300GB 10k rpm SAS drives and a controller up for sale after I do some testing with some SSDs I am getting in 
|
Simply putting drives in RAID does not decrease this value.
SSD > 10,000 rpm HD > 7200 rpm RAID0 HD in most usage scenarios.
7200 rpm HD only help in large sequential reads/writes (a.k.a. useless benchmarks like HDTune and HDTach).
Access times is the biggest bottleneck in a hard drive. That is why SSD destroy 7200 rpm drives.
And RAID0 2 drives does double the chance of data loss. If you disagree with this fact, learn statistics and probability.
7200 rpm HD only help in large sequential reads/writes (a.k.a. useless benchmarks like HDTune and HDTach).
Access times is the biggest bottleneck in a hard drive. That is why SSD destroy 7200 rpm drives.
And RAID0 2 drives does double the chance of data loss. If you disagree with this fact, learn statistics and probability.
Quote:
How is this different from running a single drive and having that fail? The result is exactly the same (catastrophic data loss).
Additionally, since array failure is equal to the chance of any single drive failing, how do you determine the failure chance of any single drive, apart from taking the stance that any single drive will fail at some point in time?
I've never agreed with this sentiment, simply because I don't understand it. Surely since the drives are independent, the chance of array failure in RAID 0 is exactly equal to the chance of any single drive in the array failing?
How is this different from running a single drive and having that fail? The result is exactly the same (catastrophic data loss).
Additionally, since array failure is equal to the chance of any single drive failing, how do you determine the failure chance of any single drive, apart from taking the stance that any single drive will fail at some point in time?
Quote:
Duckie said it best.
Quote:
As you add more drives to a RAID0 array, the chance of an array failure increases almost linearly.
Originally Posted by parityboy I've never agreed with this sentiment, simply because I don't understand it. Surely since the drives are independent, the chance of array failure in RAID 0 is exactly equal to the chance of any single drive in the array failing? How is this different from running a single drive and having that fail? The result is exactly the same (catastrophic data loss). Additionally, since array failure is equal to the chance of any single drive failing, how do you determine the failure chance of any single drive, apart from taking the stance that any single drive will fail at some point in time? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo No. It's not a myth... it simple statistics. HDDs still do fail today. The risk increase is near linear for each additional drive. Correct. The probability of any individual drive failing is no greater. However, since the failure of any one HDD in array means failure of the entire array, the probability of the array failure is higher. Please understand what MTBF actually represents. A MTBF absolutely does not mean the average useful life of the drive will be 22 years. www.apcmedia.com/salestools/VAVR-5WGTSB_R0_EN.pdf The risk of RAID failure is (assuming you are using the same drives): P = 1 - (1-F)^n where P = probablity of array failure F = single drive's failure rate n = number of drives If you had HDD with a 3.00% yearly failure rate, then the yearly failure rate of a 3xRAID0 would be 8.73%. |
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
