Raid 0. Are smaller size HD's better?

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?
10 answers Last reply
More about raid smaller size better
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. There is generally no real world(vs. synthetic transfer rate benchmarks) performance advantage to raid of any kind.
    Go to www.storagereview.com at this link: http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0
    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.
  6. Good point on data density.
  7. 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.
  8. lol...the extra 14 gigs is all thanks to vista...
  9. 17.5? Mine's only 10.2 GB (Vista Ultimate 32).
  10. Mine's Vista Ultimate 64

Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID HD Storage Product