Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey,

I already have a 7200RPM 250 gig 8mb cache sata 1.5g hard drive. Now can I get another one, thats say 7200RPM 250 gig, 16MB cache sata 3.0g. Can I do that or does it need to be like exactly the same. Also whats the performance difference between between say a Sata 1.5g and a 3.0g drive? And with raid, will I notice a difference with the smaller cache?

- Atomic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicfission92 View Post
Hey,

I already have a 7200RPM 250 gig 8mb cache sata 1.5g hard drive. Now can I get another one, thats say 7200RPM 250 gig, 16MB cache sata 3.0g. Can I do that or does it need to be like exacformanceetween say a Sata 1.5g and a 3.0g drive? And with raid, will I notice a difference with the smaller cache?

- Atomic
For a RAID array, the drives need to be exactly the same. I haven't tested it, but you might be able to get away with using drives of the same b

As far as the interface speed goes, it doesn't matter much. Current hard drives don't reach that 150mbps limit with their burst speeds,000 rpm in Raid 0. The burst rate on those dirves is about 102mbps max and the average is more like 85mbps (if I remember correctlde, scsi, etc.) will not change performance. Hard drives are not meeting tto AGP vs PCrence between the two didn't affect performance that much, or at least notufactorers claimed. When you read "Sata 300!!" on a box, it is mostly just a marketing gimmick to those who think bigger numbers = better HDD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
You can use both of those drives, but your performance will be limited to the slower drive. At least I have heard that. It is best to have 2 identical drives.

EDIT: RAID is great. If you use RAID0, be sure to backup important data. RAID0 is not a "real" RAID because it isn't redundant. I noticed a large performance boost
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicfission92 View Post
But even if it runs at the same speed as my lower drive its still gonna be a hell of a lot faster right?
Yes. It is 1/2 the data on each drive, so it can read/write much faster.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemc View Post
Yes. It is 1/2 the data on each drive, so it can read/write much faster.
yea I understand that part. But I wasn't sure if I can use 2 different drives, I know that they have to be the same size right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicfission92 View Post
yea I understand that part. But I wasn't sure if I can use 2 different drives, I know that they have to be the same size right?
I know RAID can only use the same amount of space per drive. I think if you were to put a 200GB and 300GB drive in RAID, you would only see 400GB (not counting data loss from formatting) as opposed to 500GB. It is best to have 2 identical drives. But your setup should work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemc View Post
I know RAID can only use the same amount of space per drive. I think if you were to put a 200GB and 300GB drive in RAID, you would only see 400GB (not counting data loss from formatting) as opposed to 500GB. It is best to have 2 identical drives. But your setup should work.

Alright cool. And did LembasBread die while posting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicfission92 View Post
Alright cool. And did LembasBread die while posting?
Some people don't have a very good grasp on the concept of time


In response to LembasBread. I have heard of people using drives with different specs, but the same capacity in RAID0 and it worked. That is what I am going on. I have not seen this in person, and those who claim that it works may be full of BS. I also said that the very best situation is to have 2 identical drives. Sites like WikiPedia claim that the size of the disks does not necessarily have to be the same.

So, in conclusion, I have heard of it working with 2 different drives (specs different, same capacity), and other sources claim that it works with drives of different capacity. Once again, it is ideal to have 2 identical drives.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,655 Posts
it may or it may not work I've known instances where people could not RAID the same make/model drive because it had different firmware revisions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Alright thanks for the insightful post Lembas


I am gonna see about getting 2 new drives. And then just sell my current one.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Quote:

Originally Posted by soloz2 View Post
it may or it may not work I've known instances where people could not RAID the same make/model drive because it had different firmware revisions.
wow, I didn't know it was that picky.... hmm, is the performance really worth the hassle then?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicfission92 View Post
wow, I didn't know it was that picky.... hmm, is the performance really worth the hassle then?
I posted my benchmarks. Left is before (Maxtor 300, 16mb, SATA150). Right is after (2x 7200.10, 16mb, running SATA150).

I sure noticed a boost


EDIT: I really suggest the Seagate 7200.10s. Good price/performance/capacity when compared to Raptors.
LL
LL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
I never knew you could use 2 different drives and have it default to the slower one! I still think it is risky to use different manufactorers, but if they are both Seagate, give it a shot. If I were you, I would go ahead and try it if you don't mind formatting both drives, but be ready to buy another identical drive if this doesn't work.

From my mobo manual, in the RAID section:

"RAID 0 (Data Striping)
..."Use of two identical hard drives is required for this setup"

Maybe it varies from chipset to chipset. Some higher quality RAID cards may be more lenient. Is there a leniency difference between sata and ide?

P.S. it took so long to post because I tried to look up the actual burst rates for the wd1500. I gave up, though and I just posted what I was pretty sure they were.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemc View Post
I posted my benchmarks. Left is before (Maxtor 300, 16mb, SATA150). Right is after (2x 7200.10, 16mb, running SATA150).

I sure noticed a boost

Alright thats good enough lol. I was just looking, I am gonna try getting 2 250 gig 16mb sata 3.0 drives its only like 160 shipped

Also cause I was looking for a 250 gig, 8mb and sata 150 and they don't have it
oh well. new drives. Just gonna sell my old one. almost 500 gig is enough for me. lol Even though its gonna be like 460 really.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Quote:

Originally Posted by LembasBread View Post
P.S. it took so long to post because I tried to look up the actual burst rates for the wd1500. I gave up, though and I just posted what I was pretty sure they were.
its alright. it was a really good post. I was just kidding with you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by atomicfission92 View Post
I was looking at these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822144701
Looks like we've got a WD guy


Those are basically the same thing, except they do not do the perpendicular recording like the seagates. That is newer technology that allows more storage per platter, hence faster read/write times. I'm a fan


They look good though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
If you want to compare my test side-by-side, here you go. Keep in mind, it isn't totally representative of RAID because my drives are at 10,000 rpm and have 16mb of cache each.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to press alt+prntscrn so that it only takes an ss of the open window. I captured my whole dual-display, lol. Oh well, my point should still get across.
LL
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top