partition them and install windows and programs on one partition and your personal files on another partition.
RAID0, best way to do it?
Ok, so I'm ordering this new rig below and I'm now onto deciding what I want for my storage, ssd's are not an option for now as I will get one at a later date, and this costs too much already
![]()
.
I'm thinking about getting 2x 1tb hdd's and setting up RAID0 with them. Now I'm looking to get the best performance out of this so I'm curious whether it would be better to get 2x 500gb maybe for faster performance? or partitioning the drives say 100gb/900gb and use the first partition for windows.
I'm a total noob when it comes to harddrives, so any help will be appreciated.
thanks
I'm thinking about getting 2x 1tb hdd's and setting up RAID0 with them. Now I'm looking to get the best performance out of this so I'm curious whether it would be better to get 2x 500gb maybe for faster performance? or partitioning the drives say 100gb/900gb and use the first partition for windows.
I'm a total noob when it comes to harddrives, so any help will be appreciated.
thanks
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
If I were you, I would get one large drive for back-ups and 2 smaller drives for a RAID0 array. In RAID0, if one drive fails, the array fails, so it is very important to back it up as much as possible. Keep in mind, RAID0 is only good for things that need to access the drive. (installed games, OS etc.) Things like pics and music don't benefit, so you can keep those on a normal storage drive.
Quote:
You set the array before installing the OS. Once the array is set, it appears and is treated as one drive. So, you would partition the array (as in both drives) and not each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o Baby Jesus  would I need to partition both hdd's the same amount for them still to work with RAID0? |
You set the array before installing the OS. Once the array is set, it appears and is treated as one drive. So, you would partition the array (as in both drives) and not each other.
Quote:
I forget exactly how it works, but the size of the drive changes the density of data on the platters. The denser the data, the less the HDD internals has to move to access it. The drive itself has more to do with speed than the size, though. (as in a 7200.9 vs 7200.12) Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Originally Posted by o Baby Jesus Yeah I read about if one fails they both fail, I currently have a 1tb external for backing up pics etc, but I may pick up another internal one. Does RAID0 benefit from using smaller drives then? think I read somewhere about that earlier |
2TB data in a Raid 0 Array is pointless. 2x500GB is still more data than I would ever put on a raid 0 array, unless I had backups.
You spent quite a bit on your sig rig... I would get a Intel X25-M G2 SSD, or two for raid. If you can't afford that.. just stick with your current hard drive until you can. Mechanical hard drives are becoming a thing of the past, I can't justify spending $200 (2x1TB drives) for "performance" using mechanical hard drives.
Use your 1TB external for storage, and get an SSD if you want performance.
Quote:
If you absolutely cannot afford SSDs, than this is the route i'd take. It still won't come close to a single SSD though.
You spent quite a bit on your sig rig... I would get a Intel X25-M G2 SSD, or two for raid. If you can't afford that.. just stick with your current hard drive until you can. Mechanical hard drives are becoming a thing of the past, I can't justify spending $200 (2x1TB drives) for "performance" using mechanical hard drives.
Use your 1TB external for storage, and get an SSD if you want performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNC4N Just get two 640gb blacks for affordable fast performance. |
Quote:
Yeah I can understand how much better ssd's are, but I dont think ill be looking to get them until this time next year probably, so im just after something to get me by nicely till then.
For about £120 - £150 I can get 2x 640gb and 1x 1tb, so im not too fussed about spending that. Whereas 2x 160GB Intel® X25-M comes to about £550, which is a big jump
Originally Posted by Murlocke You spent quite a bit on your sig rig... I would get a Intel X25-M G2 SSD, or two for raid. If you can't afford that.. just stick with your current hard drive until you can. Mechanical hard drives are becoming a thing of the past, I can't justify spending $200 (2x1TB drives) for "performance" using mechanical hard drives. |
Yeah I can understand how much better ssd's are, but I dont think ill be looking to get them until this time next year probably, so im just after something to get me by nicely till then.
For about £120 - £150 I can get 2x 640gb and 1x 1tb, so im not too fussed about spending that. Whereas 2x 160GB Intel® X25-M comes to about £550, which is a big jump
Quote:
+1
Originally Posted by murlocke 2tb data in a raid 0 array is pointless. 2x500gb is still more data than i would ever put on a raid 0 array, unless i had backups. You spent quite a bit on your sig rig... I would get a intel x25-m g2 ssd, or two for raid. If you can't afford that.. Just stick with your current hard drive until you can. Mechanical hard drives are becoming a thing of the past, i can't justify spending $200 (2x1tb drives) for "performance" using mechanical hard drives. Use your 1tb external for storage, and get an ssd if you want performance. If you absolutely cannot afford ssds, than this is the route i'd take. It still won't come close to a single ssd though. |
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
