Overclock.net banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have 2 x160GB SATA2 Samsung Spinpoint 3.0Gb/s drives and was considering a RAID 0 array, would this be better as a boot drive than say a 250GB Seagate Barracuda Perpindicular on it's own?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,372 Posts
I would say yes. Raid those puppies <img src="/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />
 

·
I remember when......
Joined
·
3,812 Posts
Those drives in RAID 0 would give you faster read times and more space than a single 250GB.<br />
<br />
As always, it's a good idea to partion the array to keep your OS seperate from your files <img src="/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" /> I use a 50GB partition for mine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'll be buying a 3rd hdd regardless for back-up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
RAID them, you'll be impressed with the read times you'll get from them. Faster game map loading and boot times.<br />
<br />
If you're getting a third for back up you might as well get 2 small 34GB Raptors, put those in RAID and use that for software and the OS and use the other 2 HDDs for back-up.<br />
<br />
It really depends on what kind of backup HDD you want to get
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,372 Posts
The problem is that the pair of Raptors will run him up over $200, while a good 250GB hard drive can be had for $80. I'd just RAID the ones you have and add a third drive for backup.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,833 Posts
Raptors are pretty expensive, but in a RAID, they can't be beat. <img src="/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" /> Go for the RAID for sure though. I will never go back. <img src="/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" />
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Raptors are kinda dumb for RAID imo, heh i mean everone knows that RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independent (or Inexpensive) Disks".<br />
<br />
Now this really wouldn't apply with Raptors would it? lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,372 Posts
It would beat anything in performance though <img src="/images/smilies/tongue.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Stick Out Tongue" class="inlineimg" /> (it's Independent... not Inexpensive.. RAID is often used in SCSI environments also, with 15k drives that run into hundreds of dollars, sometimes more than $1,000 per drive)<br />
<br />
However, in your case, since yuo already have the Dual 160GB, just get a back up drive and be happy <img src="/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />
 

·
 
Joined
·
29,532 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>Thumper</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">Those drives in RAID 0 would give you faster read times and more space than a single 250GB.<br />
<br />
As always, it's a good idea to partion the array to keep your OS seperate from your files <img src="/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" /> I use a 50GB partition for mine.</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>It will absolutely not give faster read times. It will give more mb/s, but not faster read times.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,372 Posts
Access times are worse in RAID, read times (bandwidth) is better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
You don't need to tell me about such things, i already know SCSI speeds and costs involved. I was simply enquiring about Perpendicular Technology and what effect it would have against common RAID 0 solutions in terms of performance between the two...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
64,289 Posts
RAID0 would benefit you greatly performance wise..System wide of course. However becarefuk as if RAID0 Array mucks up you have lost everything. RAID 0+1 would be better but you need 4 hdd's for that. 2 running RAID0 and the other 2 imaging the HDD'S for backup.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,372 Posts
The RAID would outperform a single perpendicular Seagate drive<br />
<br />
Again, my recommendation is to use the two 160GB drives in RAID, and add a back up drive.<br />
<br />
There is nothing wrong imo to reply to your (incorrect) statement that RAID is for inexpensive drives only <img src="/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" class="inlineimg" /> That reply was in addition to my advice to stick with your current drives and add a third drive.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top