Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

advice on new hdd setup

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 24, 2008 6:02:17 PM

I'm looking at building a computer that will last me for the next 3-4 years with minimal upgrades. Tasks performed will be varied (gaming, video editing, browsing, etc). I am looking for a hard drive configuration that will get me the best of both worlds in terms of performance and reliability. Size matters, noise matters and price isn't such a big issue.

my ideas so far:
1- 64gig SSD for OS/programs and 1tb drive for data with 1tb external hdd connected through eSATA for backup purposes.

2- raid0 1tb drives x2 for everything with 1tb eSATA external drive for backup (I'd expand to a second 1tb drive when the first one fills up).

3- raid1 1tb drives x2 and nothing else.

So far, solution 1 is the most expensive but also the most "complete" solution in terms of speed, noise and reliability. Solution 3 is up there but not as fast. On the upside, I could go with solution 3 and add an SSD when it gets cheaper in a year or two.

So, discuss!

More about : advice hdd setup

a b G Storage
October 24, 2008 6:24:39 PM

I am currently using a 150GB Velociraptor for OS and programs, and a 320GB WD drive for data and backups of the primary; I have another 320GB external I can use too. This is similar to your option #1, but I'm not using SSD.
I don't think RAID is a great idea, unless time=money and you really need the speed. You'll have additional hardware dependencies, and will still need to have backups.
If speed is not an issue, consider a NAS. It would be expandable, and not dependent on your PC's hardware, so it would be accessible to future machines you build. Since it could be in another room, noise becomes a non-issue.
a b G Storage
October 24, 2008 6:28:27 PM

velociraptor for os/programs
1tb for storage
1tb external for backup
Related resources
October 24, 2008 6:31:23 PM

aren't those raptors kind of noisy though?
a b G Storage
October 24, 2008 6:39:06 PM

from most reviews they are much quieter than the raptor 76 which is silently working just three feet away from me. But I haven't saved enough to get one yet so can't be positive
a b G Storage
October 24, 2008 6:46:58 PM

My velociraptor is whisper-quiet; I can hear it, but any drive makes some noise. It also runs cool, even after I copied 45GB from my old primary drive to it in one fell swoop.
October 24, 2008 6:50:35 PM

I got 2 WD 640 blues and I cant hear them ever. Not even unrarring or converting to different video formats.
October 24, 2008 6:55:29 PM

Velociraptor is the fastes SATA single HDD you can get.

Its kinda like CPU's:
Some people buy the e8600 because its the fastest and they dont want to tweak or OC.

Other people buy the e8400 and OC it for way less $$ and it performs faster then the more $$ e8600 stock.

If you want the fastest single SATA drive get it. If you want more performance/storage for your $$$ get something like the WD 640s and raid 0 them.

Bottom line the Velociraptor is for those who dont like to customize and have loads of cash, and want to flash their e-peen.
a b G Storage
October 24, 2008 7:53:21 PM

LOL well it's not a real thread till the ignorant start insulting instead of sharing knowledge.

Personally i feel that having my info on one enterprise class drive is preferable to the data risk inherent in; two desktop drives and a controller when the failure of one of the three devices will cause me to loss my data.

But hey if you do go raid while you will only see negligible real world gains, you will have some wonderful synthetic benchmarks to tout, (o my i think i figured out what an e-peen is)
October 24, 2008 8:01:59 PM

I have used both and raid 0 gives alot more perfomance and capacity then a Raptor. Until you have used both, you wouldn't know.

It dont matter if you have 1 drive or 100. If you dont back up you are screwed, so that excuse is as lame as a cow with one leg. You can get 2 WD 640s for almost 1/2 what the Velociraptor is, and you get 300GB vs 1.16 TB.

I never insulted nothing. It is the fastest single drive without a doubt. Its just not the smartest thing to do with your money.

Saying its all synthetic benches is as dumb as saying the raptor is only synthetic over other drives. its just plain dumb.
October 24, 2008 11:58:26 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
I have used both and raid 0 gives alot more perfomance ... then a Raptor.


... in what application?

See, roadrunner, this is where your analysis breaks down. Hard drive performance, as you've cited, is not just about the HDTune graph. It's about what you're going to do with that hard drive that makes all the difference.

I have a programming/development workstation where I do SQL database programming. A Velociraptor will run circles around any pair of 7200 RPM drives in a RAID 0 configuration in that application, guaranteed, because database performance is about access time and IOPs.

If you're copying sequential data from drive A to drive B for an application like DVD authoring, RAID 0 will outperform just about anything.

So you can't constantly come into these threads and categorically say that RAID 0 always beats the Raptor, because it's simply not true. Especially when you don't specify the application you're designing for or using.

In addition, the OP asked for an idea for both performance and reliability. The Velociraptor is from the WD Enterprise class of drives, with 1M hours MTBF, and is rated for 24/7 operation. The WD Caviar Blacks are from the desktop line, and putting 2 of those in a RAID-0 further reduces their reliability as a whole. He also mentioned that cost was a tertiary issue behind performance and reliability. The Velociraptor is a far better fit for his stated specifications.
October 25, 2008 12:05:37 AM

SomeJoe7777 said:
... in what application?

See, roadrunner, this is where your analysis breaks down. Hard drive performance, as you've cited, is not just about the HDTune graph. It's about what you're going to do with that hard drive that makes all the difference.

I have a programming/development workstation where I do SQL database programming. A Velociraptor will run circles around any pair of 7200 RPM drives in a RAID 0 configuration in that application, guaranteed, because database performance is about access time and IOPs.

If you're copying sequential data from drive A to drive B for an application like DVD authoring, RAID 0 will outperform just about anything.

So you can't constantly come into these threads and categorically say that RAID 0 always beats the Raptor, because it's simply not true. Especially when you don't specify the application you're designing for or using.

In addition, the OP asked for an idea for both performance and reliability. The Velociraptor is from the WD Enterprise class of drives, with 1M hours MTBF, and is rated for 24/7 operation. The WD Caviar Blacks are from the desktop line, and putting 2 of those in a RAID-0 further reduces their reliability as a whole. He also mentioned that cost was a tertiary issue behind performance and reliability. The Velociraptor is a far better fit for his stated specifications.











He said gaming, and video editing. NOT DATA BASE APPS. I am talking computing in general for the average user. I never said anything wast "better" as you put it. I said you get more bang for your buck!!!!!!

A raptor can die or be DOA just as much as any othr hard drive. Provide some benchs if your so damn concerned about it. Besides for your tiny text base data bases you could use a very small stipe and increase perfermance even more.
a b G Storage
October 25, 2008 12:56:04 AM

Yes a raptor can die, but when you have multiple drives the chances of one them failing increases.

The various series the WD manufactures:
  • desktop 3 year, not to be used 24/7 (caviar series)
  • enterprise 5 year, under 24/7 operation (raptor series)
  • RE (Raid Enterprise)an enterprise, but modified for raid

    The only drives WD supports in raid are the RE's not the caviar black, follow link for WD's explanation

    http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std...







    !