raid or raptor
which is better for gaming 2 7200hd's in raid 0, or 1 10000 hd
grieve said:A 74GIG raptor for the OS and then two Raid0 7200.11's for storage.
A word from the wise, NEVER use AID0 for storage. N E V E R!
Before we start talking AID0 and Raptors, what does the rest of your system look like? RAID, Raptors, Soundcards, Laser mice, etc are all toys you should get if the rest of your system is already near the top of the line. If you are buying a cheap PSU, drop the harddrive idea and get a good PSU. If you are buying an 8600GT, drop the harddrive idea and get an 8800GT+. If you are buying a Pentium 21xx, drop the harddrive idea and get a better CPU. Do you see where I'm going with this? I don't want to suggest either one if you are running something that is going to have a much bigger performance impact.
Remember... RAID adds risk. There is much more likelyhood of a drive failure. From what I have seen there is no real advantage from RAID when only gaming. I have not seen anything showing the advatages of the raptor in gaming though. That I will leave to others.
The only real advantage to using raid 0 is when dealing with MASSIVE files... such as video editing, big business, servers, etc. Anything else and the risk really does take away from the benefits.
lilsage said:Remember... RAID adds risk. There is much more likelyhood of a drive failure.
See my response to your other post.
From what I know RAID 0 has much faster write times than a mirror or a stand alone disk. But that's about it. Random I/O is actually slower in a RAID 0 than a mirror and stand alone disk. And read times tend to be the same between RAID 0 and stand alone, while a mirror's read times are faster. Anyone have facts though? this just from SAN knowledge and reading that I'm coming from, which is strictly work related, file servers, exchange, etc...
I basically agree with the other posters here, it would help to know what your main functions with the machine are.
Video editing, gaming, office machine?
Raid setups are supposed to be redundant arrays for data integrity, but the raid 0 is simply for performance. However, you have increase in access times since two drives (or more) need to be accessed.
If you want to do a raid0 then have fun, but realize your data will be at risk for total loss unless you add a data drive.
So for raid0 you will want 3 drives, vs the cost of one raptor.
Also the issue of size... raptors are faster... but they are very small in comparison. Since this was about gaming use then the best bet would be to have one decent sized normal drive as anything else would be a waste of money. If we were dealing with video editing or massive computing requirements (like a server etc) then it would make sense to discuss RAID and back-up drives. For gaming there is no need to go so elaborate.
lilsage said:There is much more likelyhood of a drive failure.
No there isn't, its just riskier because if 1 dies there is no way to recover your data. But its not exactly hard to backup some of your important files.
As a raptor AND a raid0 user I can definitely recommend both Raptor for OS RAID0 for everything else. Woot!
Its not the drive dying that you have to worry about, but the driver that takes a dump on you. Thats the most common cause for RAID failure that I see.
There are uses for Raptors and RAID, or even AID0. But I stand by my original post. Without knowing his budget and plans, its pointless to decide on raid.
74GB raptor for the main. Raid 0 for storage and another small raptor for Paging file and temp.
The raptor for the quick access time. The second raptor for paging and temp to increase virture memory speed plus divide the work load between two raptor.
My spec:built spring of 2005
AMD x2 4400+ with Zalman 9500A cooler
74GB main Raptor $100 on sale
500GB RAID storage $200
36GB Slave Raptor $100
Geforce 7600 GT OC with MASSCOOL VF1-PLUS
LG 16x DVD Writer
Pioneer 16X DVD writer
With the HD setup, I can burn 2 DVD iso using DVDDecrypter at 12x simultaneously. Transcoding another using NERO. Jointing 3 files using FileSJ and surfing the internet
Who in their right mind uses AID0 for storage? Worst idea ever. I also can't imagine using a 36GB drive just for "paging file and temp". You either have huge temp files, or a lot of left over space.
You spent $400 on harddrive. If someone where to spend that today, they could get four 500GB drives, for 2TBs of storage. This would provide much more space then what you have. I would assume this is a HTPC type computer, as the 7600GT isn't very good anymore. (when I built my computer in the summer of 06, it was a mid range card.)
I'm surprised your 4400+ can handle all those tasks. Two cores doing four tasks, not counting the internet surfing sounds like a lot to me. Perhaps its a magic 4400+, to go along with your magic 7600GT. You said you bought it in the spring of 2005, but they didn't come out until 2006. (check the date on the article.)
edited for spelling.
I agree 100% with 4745454b,
RAID 0 for storage is completely worthless. The whole idea is to set up redundancy for storage. The only area where you should even consider RAID 0 is for working space to move and tranfer large files.
In addition, RAID 0 nets you zero performance increase when it comes to gaming and stuff. The ONLY area where RAID 0 shines is when you are writing HUGE files, im talking to the tune of several hundred MB and larger. Reads are not faster, and random I/O (most disk activity for home users) is the same if not slower.
slick888 said:which is better for gaming 2 7200hd's in raid 0, or 1 10000 hd
Seek times for raid0 are poor - finding things on two drives = upto twice as long
Intel's Matrix Raid Array setup's are beautiful - two drives can make Raid0 and Raid1, when you loose a drive you end up with just the Raid1 patition, very clever indeed, but about time concidering that software raid (windows server etc) could do it, only a matter of time before that was made posible within the raid bios level.
All my pc's use Raid0 for windows etc for gaming, and i use a server to store my important data (Raid1).
IMO the raptors arnt worth it, that 1 second isnt worth the price, unless your a Fatal1ty hardcore gamer who needs that 1 second to spawn and hide ready to kill.
If you run a tight system, keep it clean, tweaked and defraged you should end up compensating for that slower hdd.
As another poster was saying, if your rig isnt tops like cpu and memory etc, its pointless.
apache_lives said:Seek times for raid0 are poor - finding things on two drives = upto twice as long
Seek times on RAID 0 effectively do not change as compared to a single drive. Rotational latency times go up by about 50 %. Therefore, total access to data times for RAID 0 can increase by 15-20% depending on the drives you're using. Total access to data does not come anywhere close to doubling vs. a single drive.
Personally, I use 2 250g Seagate 7200.10s in RAID 0 for OS / Programs, and 2 500g Seagate 7200.11s, also in RAID 0 for my data storage. Before people start freaking out, yes, I do keep regular backups. I have both a 7200.11 500g and 7200.11 1TB Drive in eSATA enclosures that I clone my active arrays to on a nightly basis. Performance is excellent, and data is secure. Best of both worlds.
cmptrdude79 said:Personally, I use 2 250g Seagate 7200.10s in RAID 0 for OS / Programs, and 2 500g Seagate 7200.11s, also in RAID 0 for my data storage. Before people start freaking out, yes, I do keep regular backups. I have both a 7200.11 500g and 7200.11 1TB Drive in eSATA enclosures that I clone my active arrays to on a nightly basis. Performance is excellent, and data is secure. Best of both worlds.
I like your setup. Having RAID0 and a third HDD for backup. Raptors are too small in capacity. Recording HDTV Shows kills a raptor in a week.