Picking a drive

[stewie]

I haven't bought any new components for years and I'm trying to pick a drive for a new build. I don't think I need anything crazy, just a stable, fast as possible single drive. I was looking at
1) Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (Perpendicular Recording) 250GB 7200 SATA or
2)W D Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 SATA

I don't think I need 250gb, but at least 150. Which one is faster, more stable? Or should I get something else entirely?
Also, I am unclear on what partitioning and RAID entail. Possible to use one drive to acheive this, is it worth messing with?

 

[chesh]

I just bought the WD Caviar RE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 SATA drive and it's awesome. When in RAID configuration it absolutely DESTROYS anything I've owned before. On top of that it's very quiet, cool and very fast. One of these drives it's own is good enough, and to be honest the performance difference between manufacturers these days is largely negligible.

I know the Barracuda is supposed to be an awesome drive too, but I think you'd be more than happy with the Caviar, and it's a little cheaper too!

 

[fredgiblet]

I think you will be perfectly happy with either drive, I own a 7200.10 and it rocks. One thing to note though, the last time I checked 320GB was the sweet spot for GB:dollar ratio. I know you don't think you need the capacity, but that's what my dad said when he got his first 2GB drive

EDIT: Don't worry about RAID, I don't think it would be worth the trouble for you to learn.

Partitioning is very useful and I would suggest it if you are going to be using only one drive. Partitioning basically makes it so that the computer sees two (or more) drives instead of the one that you have installed. It is useful for organization (programs partition, media partition, OS partition etc) and as a protective measure against OS failure. I woudd suggest that you make one partition of around 10-15 GB and use that to install Windows, then make a second partition using the remaining space. This setup will enable you to nuke your OS install without losing all your data if Windows get screwed up.

 

[stewie]

Thanks fredgiblet and chesh! Sounds like I'll just grab whichever happens to be cheaper at the time. Now, am I correct in assuming I can somehow set up a partition and RAID either of these (i.e. own one drive, but make it into two)? Is it even worth it? Cheers!

 

[arima]

there won't be any noticible difference if u raid 2 partitions on the same drive. Magic happens only when u raid different disks 8)

 

[yourmothersanastronaut]

You can't even do RAID on one disk...you need at least two for it.

Well, you could do a software RAID in Windows, but you'd actually lose performance because it's a software RAID, not a true hardware RAID.

 

[Hawkeye22]

I just bought the WD Caviar RE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 SATA drive and it's awesome.

The WD2500KS is a SE16 edition, not a RE16 edition. I have 4 of the WD2500KS's, two in RAID-I configuration. They work great and run cool.

The WD2500KS is in THG's drive chart. I don't see the 7200.10 series in there though.

 

[yourmothersanastronaut]

I've got two of the DW2500KS drives...and they're great.

Except my Raptor seems to run cooler than them for some reason. One of the 250GB's is right in the middle of the other two drives, all three in front of a fan, so I don't know why the 7200RPMs are warmer than the 10k RPM. Oh well, low 40s is perfect for a hard drive, anyway. No biggie.

 

[TeraMedia]

Not only that, but if you setup a RAID 0 across two partitions on the same drive, your drive's R/W head would have to seek back and forth all the time to pull anything off your disk. That's a lot slower than a sequential read on the disk.

Don't RAID a single disk. There's no point. Do create at least two partitions that are each big enough to load Windows. That way if you have an incremental drive failure, you have a shot at installing a new copy of windows and getting your data off. Or you could always get a second drive, install windows on that, and get your data off a damaged disk that way too.

 

[arima]

Not only that, but if you setup a RAID 0 across two partitions on the same drive, your drive's R/W head would have to seek back and forth all the time to pull anything off your disk. That's a lot slower than a sequential read on the disk.

Imagine losing 1/3 of the drive's MTBF. lol. :lol:

Oh and u might want to consider this configuration:
WD Raptor nGB [OS DISK]
WD SE16 320GB [DATA] Raid 1 array
WD SE16 320GB [DATA] Raid 1 array
Gigabyte I-Ram [Scratch Disk]

I'm going with that configuration with a 150GB raptor ADFD

 

[stewie]

Thanks for all the advice. Sounds like WD 2500KS is the way to go. And thanks for clearing up the RAID and partition mixup. This stuff is kinda new to me. Cheers!

 

[arima]

why don't u go for 320 instead? it's just about 20 dollars more. :?

 

[stewie]

[/quote]

why don't u go for 320 instead? it's just about 20 dollars more. :?

I can't see how I'd fill up the space. I currently have an 80gb drive and still have about 30gb left on it after 3 years. I guess I just delete stuff when I don't use it anymore.

[/quote]Oh and u might want to consider this configuration:
WD Raptor nGB [OS DISK]
WD SE16 320GB [DATA] Raid 1 array
WD SE16 320GB [DATA] Raid 1 array
Gigabyte I-Ram [Scratch Disk]

I don't have the $ for all that. Trying to keep the system total to about $1000. So I have to maximize what I can get for the money. Maybe someday when I am lighting cigars w/ $100 bills I can pull that off! :lol:

 

[arima]

I guess I just delete stuff when I don't use it anymore.

How enviable. I have a ton of TV shows and anime. :lol:

 

[randomcow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't software RAID rely on Windows (or some OS) to operate? ...so if you wipe the OS off of a software RAID partition you lose the RAID and thus everything on it??

How enviable. I have a ton of TV shows and anime.

Burn to DVD perhaps? They are really cheap these days.

 

[arima]

That is if you're using raid 0 on it.. if i'm not wrong. But i think windows might still detect it if u try to reinstall it on the same array. It's better if u use hardware raid if you've got the money. Or just use the MB's onboard raid. Note that if u put the raid array into another MB with a different controller. It will not work.

Oh.. and i can't trust DVDs.. :?

 

[Talon]

fredgiblet wrote:

I think you will be perfectly happy with either drive, I own a 7200.10 and it rocks. One thing to note though, the last time I checked 320GB was the sweet spot for GB:dollar ratio.

That is right on. Honestly I never thought I'd use the space I was getting as I upgraded PCs over the years but I found, at least for me, I end up pushing the limits of whatever space I have.

In my oh roughly 10yrs experience building both commercially and privately I've found seagates to be a little more reliable overall than the western digitals. Of course to a certain extent everyones mileage can vary but I have many friends in the industry who agree with that assessment. You also can't go wrong with the higher 5-year warranty right?

The 250g is about 32 cents per gig and the 320 is roughly 29 cents per gig so you get a little more for your money with the 320. If your budget allows I don't think you'd regret getting the 320. It also performs better in the vast majority of Benchmarks I've seen on the web for what thats worth

I think you'd be happy with either but I'd go for the seagate personally. G'luck.