RAID 0 vs Raptor

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

can anyone recommend one over the other:

RAID 0 configuration with 2 80GB 7200 rpm SATA Deskstars

or

1 10000 rpm 72GB WD Raptor

i'm building a gaming machine and am looking for performance rather
than saving data. thanks for looking.

jrock

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hello, jerel@rockbaby.com!
You wrote on 11 Feb 2005 09:50:49 -0800:

j> can anyone recommend one over the other:

j> RAID 0 configuration with 2 80GB 7200 rpm SATA Deskstars

j> or

j> 1 10000 rpm 72GB WD Raptor

j> i'm building a gaming machine and am looking for performance rather
j> than saving data. thanks for looking.

j> jrock

I have a similar question. Differences:

My drives are 80gb 7200 Maxtor IDE's for the RAID0 and I am not a gaming
enthusiast but do like a VERY responsive PC when I open large programs or
files.

Thanks.

Colonel Blip.
E-mail: colonel.blip@removethespambigfoot.com



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Chris Klink <Klink@here.noemail> wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2005 23:24:37 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:


>>I would go for 2 x 80GB in RAID1 but stay away from the "death"stars!
>>In gaming HDD speed is not your bottleneck.
>>
>>
>>Arno

> I wouldn't even bother with RAID. Just buy the biggest whopping
> 7200rpm HDD you can afford. Games are huge these days. Tests have
> shown that RAID performance in gaming is negligible.

That was RAID1 not for speed but for reliability ;-)

Arno

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Chris Klink wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2005 20:21:48 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>That was RAID1 not for speed but for reliability ;-)
>>
>>Arno
>
> Gamers don't care about that. Heheh.

Well, except that reinstalling everything after a crash interrupts their
gaming. Considering that some go to LAN parties and the like, a redundant
disk system is not a bad idea in a gaming machine--in fact one with a
removable tray so you can leave a spare at home might not be too far
off-base.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Chris Klink <Klink@here.noemail> wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2005 20:21:48 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:


>>That was RAID1 not for speed but for reliability ;-)
>>
>>Arno

> Gamers don't care about that. Heheh.

I am a gamer and I emphatically don't want to loose my
set-up and my saved games for those that are not online....

After all I don't want to "play" reinstallation. It lacks
in almost every entertainment aspect, except being long ;-)

Arno

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Trinity wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2005 21:51:43 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I am a gamer and I emphatically don't want to loose my
>>set-up and my saved games for those that are not online....
>>
>>After all I don't want to "play" reinstallation. It lacks
>>in almost every entertainment aspect, except being long ;-)
>>
>>Arno
>
> Yea, I can see your logic but to me you are wasting a ton of space
> that could be used to install more games on. I'll just take the risk
> and hope for the best.

Disks are cheap, time is irreplaceable.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)