Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raptor X 150G or 2 SATA2-RAID?

Last response: in Storage
Share
March 14, 2007 5:07:16 AM

hi,
i'm new in the forum....

I'm bulding a Gamers PC, and i don't know what's faster?
i don't need the space much coz now i have 400GB and it's enugh for now.
i tought on a RAPTOR X 150G, but than i saw that on the configuration of XPS 710 H20 thay give 2 HD's, so i though on 2X WD SE16 250G/320G on RAID.

what will be faster?
the difrences is like 500 shekels (120$) between the two configurations.

also- do i need a RAID addition or it is not so important if i have a RAID controller??? (GigaByte with the 680i or 975X chipset for now... don't know which yet to buy... it's a ~200$ difference)

thanks!
Dor.

More about : raptor 150g sata2 raid

March 14, 2007 12:28:18 PM

Cheap RAID Ravages WD Raptor @ THG

Quote:
The conclusion for our reissued battle between the current 150 GB WD Raptor and the pair of 400 GB WD4000KD hard drives in RAID 0 is surprising. Although the WD Raptor clearly remains the fastest Serial ATA desktop hard drive, the RAID 0 array beats it in most benchmarks except access time and I/O performance. The cost per gigabyte ratio of the Raptor is particularly questionable, as you can get three times the storage capacity for half the money today, which has mainstream drives beating the Raptor by a factor of six. Enthusiasts willing to accept the higher risk of data loss in RAID 0 should carefully consider a RAID array consisting of two cheap 7,200 RPM drives over the WD Raptor.
March 14, 2007 1:36:18 PM

thanks man,
but 2 things-
a. is access time & I/o Preformance do not relate/affect games?!?!
b. data loss on raid 0??? =bugs in games or lost files of works in the university... that's pretty important i would say....
Related resources
March 14, 2007 1:53:01 PM

Quote:
a. is access time & I/o Preformance do not relate/affect games?!?!

99% of the time no, as long as you have plenty of RAM (you should be running at least 2GB these days).
Quote:
b. data loss on raid 0??? =bugs in games or lost files of works in the university... that's pretty important i would say....

HDs are pretty reliable these days, and you have your 400GB backup drive just in case, if you want more security, get another 400GB drive, and run them in a RAID1 alongside your RAID0 peformance drives.

OPTION 1: security, speed, and capacity
160GB x2 in RAID0 = 320GB performance for OS/games (about $110)
400GB x2 in RAID1 = 400GB security for important files (about $110 for the extra)

OPTION 2: just speed
150GB RAPTOR = performance for OS/games (about $220)
400GB backup = no security for important files (already owned)

either option will cost you about the same $$$
which would you choose?
March 14, 2007 2:25:14 PM

I used to have SATA2-RAID, then i switched to a single raptor x 150gb after one of the drive went kaboom. In terms of windows and games. I can see the speed increase.

I am aware of the recently ran review in regard to RAID vs Raptor. And to be honest, I would get the raptor anyday in my opinion if costs is not an issue.

P.S. I prefer having option to go Raptor x2 in the future. My data files are stored on a secondary non-raptor sata2 drive. My system files and apps are on the raptorX.
March 14, 2007 2:52:07 PM

hi,
i'm reading what you wrote just after finished reading the article u sent & the one on chipsets storage preformance.
i think the chice is clear- 3X250G for OS & GAMES. =~180MB/s!
the backup storage i already have on the current pc.

max- i can do 2 raid arrays.

thanks man.
March 14, 2007 3:08:17 PM

Good choice, and good luck!
March 14, 2007 6:23:41 PM

Does it make any sence to set two RAID-0 Raptor WD1500?
March 14, 2007 7:24:51 PM

2 RaptorX in RAID0 is fastest possible SATA combo atm.
March 14, 2007 7:28:12 PM

but i will cost me like the XFX 8800GTX here in ISRAEL!
1 drive is about 1500 shekels- like ~350$.
in this price- i can do a 3HD raid 0 which will be faster than 2 raptors. and 750G. and not 150....
March 14, 2007 7:49:09 PM

The raid option is probably best for your situation, especially being overseas with a different pricing structure.

Would probably only do 2 drives in raid. You will need the third drive as a backup.

Or not, its your data to lose.
March 14, 2007 8:19:34 PM

i read the article that was sent to me on the first replay about raptor & raid 0.
so now i know a little bit more about raid than b4.

i was thinking about a 250GX3 on raid 0 or only 2 but using the intel matrix creating 2 arrays is nice no?
i have already a 400G HD in my current pc....

i can see you are using raid 5. it is better than raid 0?
i know it's slower and req. 3 drives.
but if i do 2 arrays with the intel matrix i "lose" space coz raid 1 is double.
i think i need like a 150G for OS, Progs & Games.
the rest is media-Movies,mp3z, pics so it doesn't req. speed that much.

i can see you have a powerfull machin, is raid 5 or raid 0 on 2 drives make a diffrence on gaming preformance?

another thing- can i make partitions with raid?
or i'll have to do more arrays?
now i have 1 partition for OS and progs. 1 for games and 1 for media.
it's comfortble when i need to reintall. nothing is lost.

thanks.
March 15, 2007 2:16:12 AM

Quote:
a. is access time & I/o Preformance do not relate/affect games?!?!

99% of the time no, as long as you have plenty of RAM (you should be running at least 2GB these days).
Quote:
b. data loss on raid 0??? =bugs in games or lost files of works in the university... that's pretty important i would say....

HDs are pretty reliable these days, and you have your 400GB backup drive just in case, if you want more security, get another 400GB drive, and run them in a RAID1 alongside your RAID0 peformance drives.

OPTION 1: security, speed, and capacity
160GB x2 in RAID0 = 320GB performance for OS/games (about $110)
400GB x2 in RAID1 = 400GB security for important files (about $110 for the extra)

OPTION 2: just speed
150GB RAPTOR = performance for OS/games (about $220)
400GB backup = no security for important files (already owned)

either option will cost you about the same $$$
which would you choose?

you could get buy with just $110 for the two 160gig drives, and RAID the first 15gig on each at top of the drive (fastest sectors) for a 30gig fast boot drive, then configure the remaining 145gig x 2 into a RAID 1 array for security, using just two drives for both.
Cheapest solution yet.
March 15, 2007 3:39:48 AM

can i do something like this??? with 3 250G's?
40G on RAID 0 for OS
80G " for Games
the rest on RAID 5?

but can i do partitions on a raid or with raid the solution is by arrays?

thanks....
March 15, 2007 10:38:09 AM

Quote:
can i do something like this??? with 3 250G's?
40G on RAID 0 for OS
80G " for Games
the rest on RAID 5?

but can i do partitions on a raid or with raid the solution is by arrays?

thanks....


No, you cannot...even if you could it would place WAY too big of a load on the CPU, and the performance would likely suck. Better to keep it simple with software controllers.
March 15, 2007 11:29:22 AM

If I was given the money, I'd actually put a RAID 0 of the 160GB "AAJS" variant from Western Digital. They're the best preforming drives for 7200RPM (according to the charts) and are a great value. Only thing is I'd recommend something to backup them with, perhaps get 3 160GB drives and a 500GB drive when those drop in price... setup so that you backup to the 500GB and partition the drive to have a 20GB spot for Linux.... in short:

WD 160gb AAJS x 3 in RAID 0
500gb drive x 1, partitioned into 1 480GB backup partition and 20GB for LInux

Hope that helps!

Here are the links...
Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600AAJS 160GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...
$54 each

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...
$140 each
March 15, 2007 4:56:36 PM

Quote:
No, you cannot...even if you could it would place WAY too big of a load on the CPU, and the performance would likely suck. Better to keep it simple with software controllers.


you mean i cannot do partitions or cannot do the 2 arrays- 0 & 5?
March 15, 2007 6:35:37 PM

Using Intel's Matrix onboard chipset controllers, you could use 3 Drives, with RAID0 across 40G from each drive, then use the remainder for creating a RAID1 or a RAID5 drive. But RAID5 on a software onboard RAID solution is taxing on the CPU, is more complex and generally performs better running with a hardware RAID controller card.
It would be better imo to make the remainder a RAID1 for reliability using 2 of the drives, and the other drive remainder could just be additional storage.
March 15, 2007 9:36:44 PM

i think that with a Q6600 so chip soon, the cpu cost is meaningless no?!

can i use the rest of the drives regularly?
100GB raid 0,
the rest is regular? like with no raid?
how much a contoller will cost? it would be bootable?
March 16, 2007 1:42:35 AM

Yes, that method would work fine. Keep in mind that the two drives using the RAID 0 will work best when it does not have to interact with the independent partitions being used as a second RAID1 for backup, or as independent drives. If access is needed, then performance would drop due to disk having to simultaneously read/write to the RAID0 partition, while also read/writing to the other partition(s).
Got it?
March 16, 2007 5:35:53 AM

yap....
so still, the best for pref & backup is 3XHD's on:
1 raid0 array for os
1 raid0 array for games
the rest on raid 5.

with what i learned so far- it is possible.

by this, when i want to reinstall windows- once a year its needed.... i don't format my games with it....
this is what i do now, but only with partitions.....
!