Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raid vs raptor

Last response: in Storage
Share
May 12, 2006 5:47:35 PM

I was looking into raptor drives and maybe even raptor raid setups for a computer I wanted to build, but a raptor raid was way out of my price range. I was wondering how a sata raid with say 7200 rpm drives would compare to a single raptor drive? I found allot of posts relating to raptor raids vs single raptor but I havnt seen this subject discussed, any input?

More about : raid raptor

May 12, 2006 6:42:37 PM

It'd be more beneficial if you told us what you're planning to do with it and what kind of setup you have.

-its all in the details!
May 12, 2006 6:46:26 PM

Raptors are fast because of their low latency and high spin speed (combined with SATA transfer rates)

RAID is faster because it can combine transfer and read/write speeds across multiple drives. There is no single drive faster than any RAID array (within reason)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b G Storage
May 12, 2006 7:16:54 PM

I assume you mean an AID0 array.
What are you doing that makes you think you need that much "power"? Most people have no real need for an AID0 array, and can simply use fast 7200RPM SATA/IDE drives. (don't rule out IDE drives, if dealing with drives from the same family, the IDE ones are a hair faster) RAID was developed for servers, and most people don't push their desktops anywhere near that much.
May 12, 2006 7:22:25 PM

That's a bit dumb, Opteron was developed for servers but is often advantagous for desktops (in fact that's the basis of the success of PowerPC), RAID is much faster for transfers and is a luxury that's not too expensive for desktop users. SCSI maybe is a little too much of a luxury for desktop performance due to either small drive size or massive (relative) cost.

But to say RAID is exclusively for servers, is really stupid, have you seen how many boards from the last 5 years have come with a RAID controller? That should answer your point.
May 12, 2006 7:23:22 PM

Quote:
Raptors are fast because of their low latency and high spin speed

the low latency is cause by faster spin speeds, then it's redundant saying that :p 

well, i wouldnt go into a raid array... neither i see any need for a raptor. You can buy a single, 16mb cache drive, bigger, cheaper, more silent, colder than a raptor for the same or smaller price... i dont think the performance gain with the raptors are worth these other issues i pointed... just my opinion
a b G Storage
May 12, 2006 7:52:07 PM

As suggested, it might help to know more about your applications. My initial thoughts on RAID for the desktop are that RAID-0 is a high-risk proposition (adding a point of failure) for questionable benefit. RAID-1, however, provides solid data backup. Writes may be a little slower, but with enough RAM in your system, you won't see the difference. If a drive fails, your data is safe. Tell us more about what you need to accomplish with your system, and perhaps we can be more helpful.
a b G Storage
May 12, 2006 7:56:16 PM

"But to say RAID is exclusively for servers, is really stupid, have you seen how many boards from the last 5 years have come with a RAID controller? That should answer your point"

So I should drive 120MPH because cars have been able to do that for over 30+years now? There might be places where driving 120MPH and have an AID0 setup make sense. Database servers and racetracks are such places. But just because you can doesn't mean you should. Read the AID0 benchies, but stop looking at the synthetic benchies. Start looking at the real world payoff. Considering the $$$ put into AID0, which doesn't make sense for gaming systems, it would be better spent on GPUs, CPUs, etc.
May 12, 2006 8:07:46 PM

Well Im into gaming and as I get older and more into it Id just like a fast computer you know? From what I understand a raptor and a raid array do make a difference, if only a slight one still a difference. I havn't built anything or ordered anything Im just doing my research as of now. So far im planning either an athlon x2 3800-4400 or an opteron, but Id also like to wait and see what the new sockets amd and intel are releasing have to offer, being only a few weeks away. From my limited understanding a raid array will allow the computer to read from 2 drives instead of just one, theoretically cutting down on how fast it takes the drive to access information. Now I said it that way because I know its not perfect and each drive still does have to search for the data so It could also in theory take just as long as a non raid setup. But The real question Im asking is like say in loading a game, which is faster in loading the game, the raptor or the raid array. Now for this my better judgement would say the raptor just because the one continious drive is faster than a standard 7200rpm drive and could find and load the data quick. But if a raid array is close to that same speed, a raid array would be WAY cheaper. I mean I could set up 2 80gb sata drives on raid for around $100 easy. And on the other side of the spectrum is a 36gb raptor for $100. I already have some large drives that i could transfer to the new build (2x250gb) that I could use for storage, im just looking for a fast disk system for the OS, games, and the paging file.
May 12, 2006 8:11:19 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
May 12, 2006 8:17:03 PM

I actully found supreme laws post very, very informative to what Im looking for. The idea of the system drive, the 2nd and 3rd drive for a raid array of programs and the swap file (easily restored even if one drive fails, its easy to re-install apps) and then a large drive for data and backups.
May 12, 2006 8:19:05 PM

Quote:
From my limited understanding a raid array will allow the computer to read from 2 drives instead of just one

hmmm linux has a software raid implementation that does that for raid 1. I dont know about other OSes


Quote:
im just looking for a fast disk system for the OS, games, and the paging file.

buy 2 average HD's, isntall OS, games and apps to one, change page file to the another one. I'm sure it will speed up your system, without the complications of a raid system, specially backup and recovery.
May 12, 2006 8:28:30 PM

sure, but it was a very, very, very long post... but i agree with all he said.
The point is, i work at as a system administrator and we dont use raid arrays here. Mainly because they are complicated to setup, but also if a machine fails, we cant take the disk out and put on another machine and just turn it on and run. If we had raid, we would have to put 2 disks in another board which is exactly the same as the original, or else it wont work. Also, if one disk fails, you lose your entire data. Unless you use some raid1 or 0+1, even 5, which will need more disks. Raid 1 increases read speeds and add security, but as you said you're looking for pure speed, that genereally leads to thinking of RAID 0, which i dont recommend at all.

Like i said, if you put 2 disks with no raid, install OS/games/apps and your files and the page file to another one will give more safety, more speed than a single disk, without the risks of RAID0. You can even backup your files to both disks, so if one disk fails you dont lose your important data. Also, if something goes wrong you can boot from a recovery disk, mount your disk to another computer, etc, etc.

Like someone said that just because consumer motherboards are shipping with raid controllers it means that raid is not restricted to server environments, but i think it is... putting a raid chip adds value to the board, but that does not mean it's really necessary or useful. Raid is kinda like SLI.. it does not double your fps, but if you have the money, go for it.
May 12, 2006 8:29:33 PM

I know this seems silly but backup and recovery are not even really an issue to me. I have 2 computers that I use. One I use for internet browsing, e-mail all that junk and that one I do care about the recovery. So I have 2 drives and one just holds the backups. But for my gaming comp, lets say one drive fails on the raid array, if I follow supreme laws diagram I replace the drive and then all I have to do is re-install whatever games were on that drive. Doesnt seem like that big of a hassle for me, even if it is limited performance increase.
May 12, 2006 8:34:24 PM

There are different setup of RAID, read below to understand more and which RAID setup best suit you. (I skipped almost all the posts, too long) :lol: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
May 12, 2006 8:35:30 PM

Do you consider more than $2 per GB reasonable?

That's like charging $1500 for the new 750gb drives.
May 12, 2006 8:36:35 PM

well, then go for the raid just for the fun of it :) 

i made a benchmark once... i ran a database from a raid0 array and from a single disk, and the raid array showed some 40% increase... but databases are high I/O, where raid arrays shows the best results... i dont know about common tasks like gaming or loading applications...
May 12, 2006 8:37:11 PM

Alright I think my decision is made after seeing the raptor vs raid article, seems like the average raid setup is about on par with the raptor drives, but much cheaper. Thanks for the input everyone, I get where some of you are coming from with pushing away from raid but I mean its also an expereince... I can afford it, its not too expensive, it will be cool to try and if I do get screwed up I can buy a brand new single drive for $50 lesson learned. Sounds like a small risk to me for something that will be cool to try.
May 12, 2006 8:39:48 PM

200 bucks for 4x80gb Hitachi Deskstar Sata 3.0gb/sec

May 12, 2006 8:41:07 PM

Quote:
Do you consider more than $2 per GB reasonable?

That's like charging $1500 for the new 750gb drives.


See, we not talking about price per gig. We are talking about fact, the way you stating
Quote:
There is no single drive faster than any RAID array (within reason)
is wrong. I am just making a correction not aruging about price per gig or price:p erformance.
May 12, 2006 8:42:18 PM

::whistle: : thats impressive, is that with the onboard raid controller or one of the pci-e ones like supreme talked about?
May 12, 2006 8:44:35 PM

Onboard Nvidia raid controller.
May 12, 2006 8:47:12 PM

That's why it says "within reason"

I.E. reasonable price - $2/gb is not reasonable.
May 12, 2006 8:49:27 PM

I have a 10000RPM 74GB Raptor as a system drive and two 7200RPM 320GB WD's in a RAID 1. I suggest you set up your system this way, Raptor as the system drive and use the big 7200RPM drives for the storage array.
May 12, 2006 9:02:01 PM

Quote:
There is no single drive faster than any RAID array (within reason)


You don't even know what you are talking about, the statement you stated means no single HD can beat any RAID array, and within the reason would be the reason why RAID beats the single drive. Which is a false statement. And now you are talking about Price per Gig, has nothing to do with the performance between the two Hard Drives, and you are giving an opinion
Quote:
$2/gb is not reasonable
which leads you to conclude that no single drive is faster than any RAID array. You are stating opinion and it draws you to a conclusion that's not true.

Perhaps for you $2/gb is not reasonable, but does not apply to everyone else. Keep in mind, there are people that do not care about how much they spend on a computer as long as it is the best.

Check on newegg and see how many people put comments for the raptor. Not to mention a lot of us own a raptor but didn't put a comment on it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=EN...
May 12, 2006 9:12:01 PM

You can't argue against something non-linear on a forum. Whether something is 'reasonable' or not is non-linear. Anyway, I don't think it really matters or not, multiple HDDs are much better for the money.
May 12, 2006 9:12:20 PM

Well I came back to see how the thread was going and its already done! :) 
Hope your games load faster... noticeably!
May 12, 2006 9:14:56 PM

It's obvious your statement is wrong, and you just trying to deny it. Most people here know that Raptor outperformance most RAID setup hard drives. Believe it or not, it's a fact and you can't deny that. There's a reason for the cost...
May 12, 2006 10:39:09 PM

Quote:
It's obvious your statement is wrong, and you just trying to deny it. Most people here know that Raptor outperformance most RAID setup hard drives. Believe it or not, it's a fact and you can't deny that. There's a reason for the cost...

I would have to say thats wrong. The fact is any solid state drive setup is faster than any raid. Iram the slowest is about twice the load speed of any raid raptor setup and true PCI or software base solid state drives can out perform raptors as much as 80X times. I know a PCI SSD is costly but the software SSD using 2 Giga of ram and the program should cost about $150 for the RAM and $59 for the software. 2 Giga's aren't enough to hold most new games but the 80X of the 2 Giga's will put you so far ahead that no hard drive setup could make the difference as long as you dont use a junky 8 year old HD with the SSD. The best part is when you need the extra memory its already installed. Note: Raid's are better at large databases and video editing only.
May 13, 2006 1:27:56 AM

i noticed that when there's a discussion about a particular piece of hardware, usually the owners of that particular hardware never admit there's something better than those parts

if this was an hypothetical situation with infinite cash, obviously going for a raptor (better yet, a raptor raid) would be the obvious choice, but unfortunately we dont live in an hypothetical world... so, paying more than 250 dollars for 150GB of storage for example, is, at least for me, insane. With that money you can afford 5 times that storage space... you can buy 3 drives and put them in a raid array, and still you would have 2 times the space, with the same performance level, with data security as a bonus. So, at least for me, from my point of views, going for a raptor is not worth
May 13, 2006 12:11:27 PM

Solid state drives - again, another technology that's so overpriced that you can't reasonably consider it.
May 13, 2006 1:04:27 PM

Quote:
I actully found supreme laws post very, very informative to what Im looking for. The idea of the system drive, the 2nd and 3rd drive for a raid array of programs and the swap file (easily restored even if one drive fails, its easy to re-install apps) and then a large drive for data and backups.


Thats what I do. I have 4 hard drives in my computer (soon to be 6). Once I upgrade my PC, I plan to have:

1 74GB Raptor (paid half price) for OS and regular applications
1 74GB Raptor (paid half price again for games
4x 250GB SATA in RAID5 for video storage and what not.

That way I can be playing games and streaming video off my PC to my Xbox to watch on TV.

Of course at the moment I only have 1 250GB SATA drive, 2 160GB SATA drives, and a 250GB IDE drive. I'm thinking of buying 3 more SATA 250GB drives to have a nice 750GB RAID5 array (you loose one drive to parity for redundancy). I might just start off with a smaller array though till I can pick up the new drives. Leaves me a 250GB IDE drive though that I don't know what to do with. Maybe I can get a IDE -> SATA adapter if they make them. Think they do.
May 13, 2006 4:14:13 PM

Quote:
Solid state drives - again, another technology that's so overpriced that you can't reasonably consider it.

True but Software SSD is only about $209, $150 for 2 Giga of memory and $59 for the software, and later on you can use the extra 2 Giga of ram as just memory. Software SSD is as cheap as raptor's and 80X faster. One added advantage to software SSD's is the improved performance when you use it for your swap file.
May 13, 2006 4:15:48 PM

It has its use, but not at all viable as a primary disk solution.
May 14, 2006 4:03:46 AM

Quote:
It has its use, but not at all viable as a primary disk solution.

True for now but the thread starter is wanting a raid, 2 or more HD's, setup. Software SSD with a good HD would be cheaper and faster so for the price to performance its more viable.
May 14, 2006 4:45:24 AM

Sure its cheaper and faster but its 2GB for christ sake. What are you gonna do with that besides use it for your swap file. Plus then on top of that he still has to buy hard drives to actually put stuff on. Hmm.....500GB or 2GB......yeah I'm gonna go with 500GB Alex.

Thats like saying lets use the same type of memory they use in L1 cache for system memory. Its way faster but you'll only have 2MB. Oh goody.
May 14, 2006 4:55:51 PM

Quote:
Sure its cheaper and faster but its 2GB for christ sake. What are you gonna do with that besides use it for your swap file. Plus then on top of that he still has to buy hard drives to actually put stuff on. Hmm.....500GB or 2GB......yeah I'm gonna go with 500GB Alex.

Thats like saying lets use the same type of memory they use in L1 cache for system memory. Its way faster but you'll only have 2MB. Oh goody.

Less see the largest games are only 4+ GB so the parts needing to load at any given time will fit on 2 GB. I think you need to read the thread subject because he's asking about 2 raptor raid or 2 SATA raid. My point is 2 drives aren't always better than one give you can make a software SSD drive. In gamming SSD's, be it software or hardware SSD's, should always come before raids. My point also points out that a software SSD is as cheap as a raptor drive.

The cache in the future may well be used in such a way but as the Nanometer lowers the more cache we'll have. The funny thing is cache is used for memory the same way a SSD works for a hard drive and to think you haven't gotten that yet.
May 14, 2006 5:07:43 PM

Cache? I don't think so, somehow. What's the cache on those new Itanium chips, 24mb?? Something like that - and that's uber expensive server chip. Installing anything useful to cache won't happen for absolutely ages. They've been doing 512kb caches since Pentium Pro, and we're just getting to 2mb caches 10 years later.
May 15, 2006 3:43:45 PM

Quote:
Cache? I don't think so, somehow. What's the cache on those new Itanium chips, 24mb?? Something like that - and that's uber expensive server chip. Installing anything useful to cache won't happen for absolutely ages. They've been doing 512kb caches since Pentium Pro, and we're just getting to 2mb caches 10 years later.

Ok maybe you forget that the pentium the first 32 bit CPU's came with only 4 Mega of RAM and thats the cache on the conroe/core 2 Duo. 4 Mega can run windows 3.11 for workgroups or Dos 6.22 with Doom2 so useful it maybe. The new Itanium chip having 24 Mega can run Windows 98SE which some companies use today.

When was 512K or RAM standard on PC's? The 8086 I think and that was 16 years before the Pentium Pro so cache is comming up fast on RAM if you look at it from a historical view.

True, it will be a long while till cache equals the need of the current OS but back on subject if the industry can use less cache to speed up RAM then its only smart to use RAM to speed up hard drives. Would you use RAM of the same type to spead up RAM? The industry has time and again gone to faster RAM instead of just more RAM. Using a second hard drive to speed up the first hard drive does work but the better solution is software SSD on small foot print programs like games.
May 15, 2006 9:30:39 PM

So you're talking about replacing RAM with cache?

Great, you can run an EIGHT YEAR OLD operating system on a chip that costs more than most people's houses. And a 15 year old one on a system that isn't out yet.

I don't think there's much argument to say 512k cache isn't about average these days, if you take into consideration what chips are available and what people use. If anything it's less, what with all the 256k Celerons and Semprons that are about, as well as Athlon XPs and P4s.

I'm about to take a leaf out of the 9-inch book of getting people to listen to you, but simpletons seem to communicate well between each other.

SOLID STATE DRIVES ARE NOT VIABLE IN ANY FORM. YET.

Anything that requires me to absolutely don't you DARE unplug that computer lest I lose a sh!tload of data is not something I count as viable.

(Are you not the guy who reccommended an Emachines PC over a home build?)
May 16, 2006 12:30:51 AM

Quote:
SOLID STATE DRIVES ARE NOT VIABLE IN ANY FORM. YET.

So your saying my less than 1 second load time for counter strike source map is not viable.
Quote:
Anything that requires me to absolutely don't you DARE unplug that computer lest I lose a sh!tload of data is not something I count as viable.

Yet you'll depend on less reliable raptors than slower more reliable 7200 rpm HD and much faster SSD. The data you lose is nothing more than a copy of whats on your primary hard drive.

Quote:
I'm about to take a leaf out of the 9-inch book of getting people to listen to you, but simpletons seem to communicate well between each other.

To think a simpleton would know what proprietary means and a smart person as yourself thinking it means and I quote

Quote:
And I'd wager that they use custom motherboards, because I've seen them use custom motherboards before. Custom motherboards = proprietary parts - often with no AGP/PCI-E support and 2 or even just 1 DIMM socket.

I wrote
Quote:
None of those mean proprietary. No AGP/PCI-E only means cheap Intel onboard chipset and 1 DIMM again means cheap motherboard. Proprietary parts are parts that force you to buy addons from them. Look back at what I wrote about Compaq for if you need to replace their PSU you have to buy from them because the motherboard will not work with any other PSU. If you owned a compaq you had to buy their RAM in most cases.

Standard equipment are parts based on standards ment to work with all other equipment which complies with those standards. Proprietary equipment are parts that only work with other intended proprietary parts and are protected by patients to guard against other from making parts for. A proprietary mobo may have an AGP slot like the presario 5838 which comes with a voodoo3 card. Upgrading the card will require upgrading the PSU which is proprietary and cost $159 for a 250 watt PSU at last check.


I guess we may both be simpletons so we communicate well.

Quote:
Are you not the guy who reccommended an Emachines PC over a home build?

Yes and no, because the parts aren't proprietary just cheap and the thread was for a $600 system and I didn't recommend the Emachine over the home build. I was recommending the Emachine over the Dell another guy suggested. Learn to read past posts for you pass judgement because your assumption can make an @$$ out of you.
May 16, 2006 4:39:06 PM

I've already explained to you why solid state drives aren't viable (btw, dictionary.com it as you clearly don't understand what it means) so I won't bother explaining again.

Quote:
Yet you'll depend on less reliable raptors than slower more reliable 7200 rpm HD and much faster SSD. The data you lose is nothing more than a copy of whats on your primary hard drive.


I don't use Raptors. I just said they are more reliable than a SSD. Which they are.

Quote:
To think a simpleton would know what proprietary means and a smart person as yourself thinking it means and I quote


Proprietary parts are (at least where I'm coming from) those custom to a certain manufacturer that are not useable in any other system - I.E. custom shaped motherboards and PSUs, non-expandable boards due to lack of AGP/PCI-e (which you would definitely find on 99.9% of retail boards) etc...

Again, dictionary.com. It's a real boon for both the stupid and the curious.

Finally to round this all off, I uselessly quote from another thread:

Quote:
Buy an Emachine T6528 and slap in a 7600GS.


Followed up by...

Quote:
Its not the best ideal granted but what can you expect for $600.


Could we stop wasting people's time/energy with this pointless argument, I doubt you're going to admit I'm right and I'm sure as hell not going to admit you are, so if we could leave it here it'd be great.
May 16, 2006 5:37:52 PM

Quote:
$2/gb is not reasonable.

Well I guess that would depend on the person. I have had a few raptors and am very willing to dish out the cash for them.

Quote:
Yet you'll depend on less reliable raptors than slower more reliable 7200 rpm HD and much faster SSD.

Less reliable? How exactly are they less reliable then a 7200rpm drive? I have had countless 7200rpm drives, with a fair share of problems, to be expected though over time with a lot of hard drives. Now my oldest raptor is about 3 years old and I have not had a single problem with it, I also have a 74gb and 150gb raptor that work flawlessly. The raptors also have a 5 year warranty on them. Personally I don't keep stuff that long generally so it works for me. I suppose if you plan on keeping a hard drive for 10 years them maybe it's different for you.
May 16, 2006 7:40:49 PM

I just built a PC a month ago with 2 WD Raptor 10,000 RPM 150 GB drives and placed them in a RAID 0 configuration using an onboard Nvidia Controller on an ASUS A8N32 SLI motherboard.

I also have a WD 400 KD hard drive. I use the 400 GB drive for storage & backups, and the RAID 0 array (300 GB total) for Windows & games.

For the nay-sayers (read: RAID non-conformists), after using RAID for over a month now, I can wholeheartedly agree that RAID offers advantages in speed and latency over a single drive. If you play games, RAID is highly recommended! If you play Battlefield 2, you know what I mean when I say that load times are not a deal breaker, but are damn annoying when you want to get into a game. Don't mind waiting 60+ seconds for the game to load? You're more patient than I am.

Frankly, I can't think of a reason NOT to have RAID if you are a gamer. As long as you back up critical data, you are 100% safe if hardware crashes. You see, other components can fail too...which is another reason to back up your data. I had lightning strike my computer, so I learned that lesson...but I digress.

If you want to see actual numbers, read Maximum PC. Every month it seems, they do benchmarks on all kinds of hard drives both with and without RAID, using HD Tach and other benchmarks.

I will echo the sentiment that cost is NOT the factor for hardcore gamers like myself. We have to have the best, cost be damned. If there was room in my PC to do a SCSI RAID 0, trust me, I'd do it!
May 16, 2006 7:45:04 PM

Quote:
Yet you'll depend on less reliable raptors than slower more reliable 7200 rpm HD and much faster SSD.


Less reliable? How exactly are they less reliable then a 7200rpm drive? I have had countless 7200rpm drives, with a fair share of problems, to be expected though over time with a lot of hard drives. Now my oldest raptor is about 3 years old and I have not had a single problem with it, I also have a 74gb and 150gb raptor that work flawlessly. The raptors also have a 5 year warranty on them. Personally I don't keep stuff that long generally so it works for me. I suppose if you plan on keeping a hard drive for 10 years them maybe it's different for you.


The fact is the slower rpm drive has in theory, built with the same tech, a longer life due to less heat and wear on the spindal. True the raptor has a longer warranty but more due to higher price tag. I have a 5400rpm western digital working for some 10 years now. When combined with software SSD the life of any drive will greatly increase as it acts as a much larger cache greatly decreasing number of hits to the primary drive.
Software SSD is near the fastest SSD doing about 80X that of any hard drive and the software only costs is $49.
http://www.cenatek.com/store/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=33...
Iram is a good SSD but only about 6X that of any hard drive but it can hold 2x, with 1 iram or 4x with 2 iram cards, of the current motherboard based software SSD. Iram's best parts is battery backup and can boot your OS for around $100 plus the RAM. Will make a great use of your old DDR once you move to DDR2 memory.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/gigabyte-iram/inde...
I use the 7200rpm drive and software SSD due to an equal price point to 2x 74Gb raptor raid. While a raptor primary drive would be some faster with a software SSD I would say the SSD is far more important in the build for a gamming system.
May 16, 2006 7:59:37 PM

Sorry for the double post. THG has been slow today and I guess I hit submit twice by accident!
May 16, 2006 8:14:29 PM

silverfrog why did you submit it twice? Raids nice but for gamming software SSD should come before the second drive.[/quote]
May 16, 2006 8:15:38 PM

Quote:

The fact is the slower rpm drive has in theory, built with the same tech, a longer life due to less heat and wear on the spindal. True the raptor has a longer warranty but more due to higher price tag. I have a 5400rpm western digital working for some 10 years now. When combined with software SSD the life of any drive will greatly increase as it acts as a much larger cache greatly decreasing number of hits to the primary drive.

That would only be true if the software SSD either 1) slowed down the drive or 2) spun the drive only when needed.
Otherwise, the drive will still spin when the system is on and still have "heat and wear on the spindal". Not to mention the motor, other components, etc.
In addition, adding tons of cache is not always beneficial because the system must spend time searching the cache for the information. Obviously there's several ways to minimize the impact of the search, but the fact remains that searching a 8MB cache is faster than searching a 512MB cache.

A thought might be to hold enough data in the HDD's software SSD to offset the need to wait for the head to move to the correct position/sector - the average seek time.
May 16, 2006 9:30:45 PM

Quote:
n addition, adding tons of cache is not always beneficial because the system must spend time searching the cache for the information. Obviously there's several ways to minimize the impact of the search, but the fact remains that searching a 8MB cache is faster than searching a 512MB cache.

True but in this case were talking about a 2 to 3Gb software SSD than can hold mostly all of any game. The software drivers for the SSD wouldn't even take the time to check the HD but stop at the RAM where the software SSD has the files.

Quote:
A thought might be to hold enough data in the HDD's software SSD to offset the need to wait for the head to move to the correct position/sector - the average seek time.

In most games thats the case but a few will come with more that 3Gb's which the fact of RAM being 80X times faster than a HD will only slow it to say 75X the fastest HD.
!