Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raid 0. Are smaller size HD's better?

  • NAS / RAID
  • HD
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Storage
September 14, 2008 10:19:41 AM

Are there any advantages going with a smaller set of HD's for a RAID 0 main drive? The price is of 2 80gb's is the same as 250's and 2 500's isn't far off. RAID 0 is bad to store files and 100gb is more than enough to store every game I own. Storage will be on another drive set. The 500gb-1TB drives seem to have a higher fail rate with more platters. Many of the higher capacity drives have higher caches though. Is there a sweet spot for Raid-0?

More about : raid smaller size

September 14, 2008 5:01:03 PM

I don't think there's really a speed difference you would see between 2 80's and 2 250's. I would get the 250's just for the extra storage. I think you'll fill up the smaller drives faster than you think. Just my C:\Windows folder is taking up 17.5gb.
September 14, 2008 5:26:17 PM

Not to mention the 80GB Drives are likely much slower themselves.
I wager 80GB Drives Raid-0 would be slower than a single good 320GB drive.
Related resources
September 14, 2008 6:00:21 PM

zenmaster said:
Not to mention the 80GB Drives are likely much slower themselves.
I wager 80GB Drives Raid-0 would be slower than a single good 320GB drive.

Because the 80gb drives are older?
September 14, 2008 6:20:55 PM

Yes Older
Less Cache and Lower Data Density.

Less Density means that at the same rotation speed, less data passes under the head at a given time.

3.5" Drives now often have platters that can support 320GB or more on a single platter.

That is the same size platter that you likely have on a 80GB Drive
The Result is that data is packed 4x tighter which can have a massive effect on performance.
a c 180 G Storage
September 14, 2008 6:34:44 PM

There is generally no real world(vs. synthetic transfer rate benchmarks) performance advantage to raid of any kind.
Go to at this link:
There are some specific applications that will benefit, but
gaming is not one of them. Even if you have an application which reads one input file sequentially, and writes
it out, you will perform about as well by putting the input on one drive, and the output on the other.

If you can't get a ssd or velociraptor, then I would suggest "short stroking" with a 640gb or larger drive. That is deliberately using only 10% of the large drive's capacity. That puts all your data on the outer 10% of the drive where transfer rates are higher. Seek time is also less because the access arm needs to only traverse a small part of the drive. Short stroking is why you see such impressive boot times in reviews of terabyte sized drives.
September 14, 2008 6:35:38 PM

Good point on data density.
September 14, 2008 7:48:42 PM

br3nd064 said:
Just my C:\Windows folder is taking up 17.5gb.

I am using XP with all updates and it only takes up 3.58GB.

I played around with Raid-0...when it crashed I learned to never use it again.
September 14, 2008 7:53:20 PM

lol...the extra 14 gigs is all thanks to vista...
a b G Storage
September 14, 2008 11:14:30 PM

17.5? Mine's only 10.2 GB (Vista Ultimate 32).
September 14, 2008 11:24:35 PM

Mine's Vista Ultimate 64