3drives RAID0 vs 150gb Raptor


A brilliant drive, if you look at tomshardware benches it does extremly well.


A good old 10k RPM Raptor.

Ignoring the issues most people mention about the RAID0 drive failure possiblity, which do some of you think will do better, 3 of those in RAID0 for big performance gains, for the raptor, theres als to consider it would be 150gb vs 750gb.
13 answers Last reply
More about 3drives raid0 150gb raptor
  1. i usually dont mention hdd failure, as thats still dependant on a single hdd, just like when going non raid (backing up however should never be ignored, whether youre raided with redundancy or not). however, the performance difference for typical desktop uses will still go in favor of the raptor, simply because the 250GB hdds dont offer dense enough platters to be able to overtake any raptor really for typical application uses, oldest or newest, as the faster seek times are the largest reason why the raptors are still fastest for most people (the denser platters are also the result of PMR for current top end 7200 hdds being able to at least get closer for practical usage seek times, like with the WD 1TB (200GB platters), samsung or hitachi 250GB platter hdd, and seagate 334GB platter hdd, for instance).

    raid 0 is simply not the answer for most applications or situations, but if you are wanting comparatively inexpensive performance that nears raptors for practical uses, go with a hdd that offers dense enough platters, not just higher STRs (such as from something like raid 0).

    but if youre wanting absolutely top performance for typical uses (gaming and web browsing and whatever), theres only a few choices really, 10k raptors or 10k scsi (raptors are the less expensive), 15k scsi, or ssd. (balanced price is certainly not as much of an issue when youre considering any of these)
  2. It depends on what you're doing, the raptor has faster access times so things like opening small programs etc will be faster, however the RAID 0 array would be faster for installing / moving / loading large files.
  3. agreed. for dealing with large/very large sized fails, media editing of movies, rebooting windows, etc, raid 0 is the way to go. again, thats primarily due to actually being able to take advantage of its noticably higher STRs due to the larger size of the files, nothing else really.

    for literally most everything else though, seek times (as a result of higher rpms or much denser platters), will have the largest impact for most things, because the files being dealt with for the OS and applications often arent very large, usually only a few KB in size or so. game loading is also included in there too usually, i can only imagine that its due to the files themselves being small, compressed, or whatever, even when you may see otherwise in the applications directory.
  4. As others said if you need to load tons of big files (100MB+) a RAID0 array would be faster, if you use mainly for gaming or normal applications a raptor will be slight faster.
    I have a raptor, but I see a really big difference only in loading Windows and with heavy loaded DB and server applications (I'm a DBA developer), while in other areas you'll notice a difference only if you clock it with a timer.
    Consider that a 3-drives RAID0 array built on 7200rpm HDDs normally has 2.5-3 times the transfer rate of a single drive, but 50-100% slower access times (due to the rotational latency).
    And keep in mind that a 3-drives RADI0 array has 3 times the probability of a fault: you have 3 drives that can fail, not one.
    If I were you, I would go for a single big drive like the WD 7500: it's fast and big and absolutely reliable.
  5. Thanks for your help.

    140gb taht the raptor offers would be enough for me, Im just going to look at my budget and decide whether to get one of those or one of the new drives from Western Digital that beats the Raptor is some respects, like the 750gb one, but smaller. Theres a 320gb one on ebuyer for just £60 :D
  6. RAID-0 Raptors? Anyone? ;)
  7. as far as i can see the raptor is safest and INCREDIBLY fast 70mb/s from itself to itself. But you get a lot less space and i could not say which is faster, the raid or the raptor.
  8. Why not get both? You could load your OS on a 74GB raptor and have 1 or 2 7200 rpm drives for your main storage.
  9. leo2kp said:
    RAID-0 Raptors? Anyone? ;)

    Well, RAID-0 raptors are a strange configuration. They absolutely kill in transfer times, but they don't have enough storage space to be really practical for the types of apps that Raid-0 is good for, i.e. hardcore video or audio editing. The cost is high too. The real world performance gain for standard apps is very small. If you have money to burn and have already maxxed out every other component in your system, go for it. If there is ANYTHING else that you can improve, do that instead. Even a memory upgrade from DDR2800 to DDR21066 would offer a bigger performance gain in common daily apps.
  10. get 3 drive, stick them in raid 0, but, don't use the default stripe size! 32k for best access times, 64k for mix, 128k for long sequential reads/writes.

    having smaller stripe tries to prevent small files from being split between 2 drives, and having the second drive seemingly instantly seek to the next file, however, for long sequential writes, having a big stripe size will prevent your array from switching drive too often to build up transfer rate, use 64k stripe size for happy medium, even better if you do 64k stripe, when you format your drive select 64k blocks, to make sure only 1 block per section of stripe on a disk
  11. ethel said:
    Why not get both? You could load your OS on a 74GB raptor and have 1 or 2 7200 rpm drives for your main storage.


    leo2kp said:
    RAID-0 Raptors? Anyone? ;)


    Money doesnt just grow on trees you cant just say "get the best thing ever" because people cant afford that.

    The 74gb drive costs £90 - £110 so for 2drives RAID0 it would cost a TON. And thats still only 140gb space, for all that money!

    The using 2 different drives is good but theres no point buying a 74gb drive just for OS, a 36gb one could handle it, but thats still £50 - £70, JUST for faster windows load. Im basicly going to have a seperate storage extrenal hard drive for things like films and music, so I can take it around with me. So no concerns there the main drive will just have things like games, apps, windows etc.

    Im going to look at 2drives, the Raptor 150gb and the new Western Digital 320gb WD3200AAKS which is like the best 7200RPM drive out there on speed.

    Depending on my budget Ill look what else i could spend £80 on if I got the 7200rpm drive to see if that could make the performance up, such as better memory or something, if it cant Ill go with the Raptor. I doubt Ill find anything that can make up for it though, I've been planning this build for too long.

    Thanks for the help guys!
  12. I don't know if this is a good suggestion, but after seeing performance tests, I couldn't help but think that WD's new 750GB hard drive is a good single drive to get. It rivals raptors in some tests and usually beats other 7200 rpm drives. $200 for 750 GB and close to the raptor's performance (except latency, of course). What do you guys think?
  13. It definatly is a great drive thats fact, problem is if your like me, there aint no way in hell im ever going to use even half that space, I probably wouldnt even fill up the 140gb raptor. ATM im using 78gb of space and thats all.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives Performance Raptor Storage Product