Dual 500GB HDD's or one 1TB HDD?
What is better (any why, of course) when it comes to the number of HDD's? I can get two 500GB HDD's for the same price as one 1TB HDD, so... which should I get?
pip_seeker said:Raid 0 will not double your speed.
500G's are alot slower? Sounds like Santa is spreading alot of FUD before the new year.
Oh really? Do you have any real proof? Maybe you shouldn't comment on something you know nothing about.
I happen to run raid 0 setups and it does double the speed. What the hell else is the point of raid 0 then all knowing mighty one, cause if it dont double the speed I would like to know what it does do. The programs I run that show double speed must be lying to me.
Next time try Google before you spout off about something you have no idea about.
The 500s Get almost 70MB/s reads
The 640s get 90MB/s, big difference in performance.
Going RAID 0 has only the benefit of increasing the read speed because it can read from 2 drives at once. If you are not doing multimedia work, I think the benefits gets slimmer. Games might load quicker, but that is about it. You also have to know that not all RAID controllers are inter-compatible, this means that if you change you MB to one with an incompatible controller, you either loose all your data or have to find a way to store it to an alternate media (ex: external 1TB+ drive).
Beside RAID, you could also partition both drives in a way that would limit concurrent access; typically, this is done by putting the OS on a drive and the Programs on another. Since 500GB is big, even for Vista, you might end-up with a 50-60GB partition for OS and the remainder for data. Everyone has a different partition schemes.
There's a good reason.
Now use HD tune to test your Hard drive and tell me Raid 0 is not good.
Get a 1tb drive.
Simply: the 1tb has more density than the 500gig therefore it is faster by itself. If you want to add another drive and do a raid array later, you'll still have that option.
For daily use, going raid0 simply isn't worth the added risk of data loss + added noise + added heat + added energy use for slightly faster speeds at higher costs.
Now if your name is roadrunner and you like to go fast so that the coyote doesn't catch you, grab a couple of ssd's and raid0 them :P
hmm... in that case I think a 1TB drive is favourable... but ... what if i dont want to raid. What if i use them as a C drive and as a E drive or something. Which will be better then? I will have the same amount storage for the same price, but I just wanna know if there are hidden advantages with 2 drives
the 1tb drives are nice and all but for $/gb get 2x640gb drives they offer better performance than the 500gb drives as well. I have 2x500gb drives that i got a little over a year ago and have had them in raid 0 the entire time. When i set this computer up I did some times compared to my single 500gb drive that i now use as storage and in real world game load times i averaged about 15-25% faster than using 1 drive. Windows actually loads slower since it has to boot the raid driver before going to the desktop but that's no big deal for me since i turn off my pc maybe every 3-4 days or so. Mostly i have video media on here anyways and it seems that it loads that up fairly well though thats a subjective thing I havn't tested it or anything, i could though i suppose i have a drive sitting around here somewhere that has a backup of my raid...
Vixe said:hmm... in that case I think a 1TB drive is favourable... but ... what if i dont want to raid. What if i use them as a C drive and as a E drive or something. Which will be better then? I will have the same amount storage for the same price, but I just wanna know if there are hidden advantages with 2 drives
Well the advantage of having 1 drive is you only have 1. Less wattage from running them fewer headaches is one is bad and you were trying to set them up. The disadvantage is that if that one drive fails and you don't have your data backed up...
With 2 drives you have the option of using or not using raid and then if you do use raid you have a few options towards performance or safety. So you could have a boot drive and one as storage and manually back up files from one to the other. Or you could set up raid 0 (has the same amount of data storage as a 1tb drive 500gbx2) and then have slightly better perfarmance. However with 2 drives you double the risk one of them fails and again you loose all your data. Or you can run something like raid 1 that makes an identical copy on each drive so that if one fails you simply replace it with another drive of the same size and then it backs up your data again.
I suggest having a smaller capacity OS drive and then get a 1TB drive for storage.
It depends what you want to do, though. You don't need a huge capacity drive to have your operating system on. I don't think it's wise to have data and the OS on the same drive. Some data is fine but ALL of it? I think a better idea is to get the largest (capacity) drive you can afford and use it as a storage drive - for your data.
This concept is especially valid for laptops (at least, until the SSD drives lower in price.).
I would get a 120-to-320 GB drive (best price/performance) for the OS and then you can get a 1TB drive for storage. That way, you can shop for a drive that is good at loading an OS and working with software v.s. a drive that is well/better suited for a storage drive (when looking for capacity/storage). I think two drives of the same capacity (for e.g., 500 GB) is good for when you really want a back up and that is where RAID comes in (for me, anyway). I am not sure RAID is worth the trouble to enhance performance but I am not really familiar with its use so I'm only speculating. Many would disagree with that guess but I still think a large capacity drive is best suited for storage. Like I said, though, it depends what you want to do with the drives.
The only reason I want 1TB is for media storage. I have loads of music and videos that I want to store on my PC, and also games that take up a reasonable size of disk space. I want fast read performance, but I also want fault tolerance. In that case RAID 10/01 seems ideal, if it fits into my budget.
Can any of you recommend a fast 320-500GB HDD that works well in RAID 10/01? And does RAID 01 perform better in read than RAID 10?
If I were you, I would go after this one:
I bought the WD 320 GB AAKS version that was the fastest 320GB drive at the time and that one might be faster now.
The one I bought has been fine, though.
Edit: Oops, that's a notebook drive! LOL! Sorry!
I would choose this one for a desktop drive:
Not sure if there is a smaller 'Black' drive but that line seems reliable enough and has good performance reviews.
2nd choice I recommend Samsung drives such as the F1 SpinPoint line. Still a good price and good performance.
I don't know much about RAID so sorry, 'can't answer that part of the question.
This was very badly finished imo so I need to make this clear for anyone who reads this in future.
3 Things to know about RAID:
RAID CANNOT be used by all Mobos so don't assume you can use it, check before you even consider it.
RAID 0 - The 2 Drives will combine to make on larger drive, i.e. 500GB x 2 = 1TB, The advantage is double read speed, write speed and cache, the disadvantage is, as said, if one drive fails your data is lost
RAID 1 - Mirroring is a totally different beast, if you have 500GB x2 you only get 500GB of storage but everything is saved twice, the obvious advantage is that if one drivve fails then you lose nothing but one hard drive, the disadvantage is half storage and cache, read and write speed isnt affected as far as I know
Identical HDDs are adviced but apparantly not compulsory