Overclock.net banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
3 Caviar Blacks would be the way to go. Good buffer plus from what i know, they are reliable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by hoth17
View Post

i'm looking for the fastest raid 0 setup i can get for around $200
i am leaning heavily on the first option, but here are some others. I am also open for suggestions. Size is not a big deal as long as it is over 750gb. Thanks, and + rep for anything useful.

2 (3 later on) x Western Digital Caviar Black 640gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136319

4 x Western Digital Caviar SE 320GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136098

3 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148395

go with the cavier blacks, I'm pretty sure from what i have been hearing around here anyways is that those 7200.12's have a bad failure rate, caviar SE's of heard nothing about so eh on those lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Teufle
View Post

To my knowledge the 4x would do the most good. Size isnt that big of a factor.

with 4 drives you have a greater chance of one failing, leading to loss of ALL data
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
I love my 640gb Black, it's crazy fast considering I'm only running a single drive. Any amount of these in RAID would be insane. Def go with the 640 Blacks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
is there any diffence in the black 500gb and 640gb besides the size?

i have 2x 500gb black in raid-0 and they been great so far, i use to have 2x raptorX in raid-0 and these are pretty damn close to them in speed.....
heres a pic on how they perform
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
the wd 500gb has two platters, 250gb each. the seagate 500 has one platter which makes it faster. the WD 640 has 2 platters as well; however, they are 320 each, giving them a higher density. The higher the density the faster the drive.

wd 640 >= seagate 500 > wd 500

xinjax - may i see a hd tune benchmark of the 2 x 500 wd black?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
According to western digital the best HDDs for RAID are those with multiple platters... so a 1TB with 4 250GB platters would be best, for example. But they directed me to their enterprise edition HDDs when I asked for consumer level... so maybe they just said that to try to make more money...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by hoth17 View Post
the wd 500gb has two platters, 250gb each. the seagate 500 has one platter which makes it faster. the WD 640 has 2 platters as well; however, they are 320 each, giving them a higher density. The higher the density the faster the drive.

wd 640 >= seagate 500 > wd 500

xinjax - may i see a hd tune benchmark of the 2 x 500 wd black?
here you go
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
I would worry about the reliability of the seagates, but the price and platter density is attractive.

If it were me I'd go with the WD's as they are proven in both reliability and performance. I'm not sure which would be faster, but I'm sure there are benches for both drives available. RAID performance should scale about the same for both, so whichever is the fastest by itself will almost certainly be the fastest for a given number in a raid config. In my sig rig, my 3 drives come in at 2.75 the speed of a single drive, so that should give you a rough factor if you are using ICH9R or 10R in softwar raid. A good hardware raid should be a bit closer to perfect scaling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
if i got seagates i would run a raid 5 with 4 of them. If i can get them for the same price i would like to have some redundancy. however, the only issue with that is how my onboard raid controller will work in a raid 5 setup. I have see lots of benchmarks for raid 0 but none for raid 5. I know the onbard controllers are not as good with raid 5, can anyone give me any numbers?
 

·
Linux Lobbyist
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
Based on performance and reliability, I'd go with the Caviar Blacks, and for extra security I'd go RAID 5; are you booting from these? Western Digital are just about the only drives that haven't died on me, and my setup runs 24x7.

It's a damned shame Storage Review isn't as active as it was in the good old days, else I could probably point you to a review.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by parityboy View Post
Based on performance and reliability, I'd go with the Caviar Blacks, and for extra security I'd go RAID 5; are you booting from these? Western Digital are just about the only drives that haven't died on me, and my setup runs 24x7.
but if i am going to run a raid 5, then whats it matter about wd or seagate. If any fails i just rma get a new one hopefully before another fails. I may have to rma seagate a little more often, but isn't it worth the extra hdd?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
other than boot a couple sec on boot, copying large files and a few seconds on game load times, are there any real advantages to having a data transfer rate of 300?

or should i just get a nice 1tb?
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top