Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

(2) WD3200AAKS vs VelociRaptor300 Please Help

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 1, 2009 4:07:46 AM

I currently have a pc i am rebuilding from scratch. I have spent 2 weeks reading different threads and not sure what to do about hard drive. I have a wd3200aaks now, and a 1.5tb wd for all my music and videos. my plan was to run the OS (vista x64) off the wd 320. however when transferring large files (40-50)gb at a time it takes forever. I was thinking about buying another wd3200aaks and running RAID 0. However, The wd3200aaks I have now has the double platter 160, and all the new ones are the 1 platter 320. So i wasnt sure if it would effect performance and stability

Here are my options:
1:velociraptor 300 gb (200$ after rebate)
2: 2 brand new single platter WD3200AAKS (100$ for both)

Basically my question is which option is better, and why?

Im not worried about data loss with RAID 0: all my important stuff stays on the 1.5tb drive. And everything gets backed up daily.

Here are the specs for the build :
Q9650 Overclocked to 3.8
8gb pc8500 clocked at 1106mhz
asus maximus motherboard
XFX Geforce 9800gtx graphics card
Samsung blu ray player
a c 167 G Storage
April 1, 2009 4:50:21 AM

I am not normally a fan of raid, and I love the velociraptor. But-- I think you have a good case for raid-0 here.

Even though the velociraptor is a 10k device, it's data transfer rate is not 30% faster like you might think. The 10k and 2.5" form factor helps the access times and latency. Where it shines is for the OS where there are a lot of short random updates.

If I understand the work you will do, it is the process of copying 40-50gb of sequential data from one file to another.

The first principle is to try to arrange it so that the input and the output are separated on different devices. That is so the access arm is not constantly being stolen.

The next thing is to realize that the process can only proceed at the pace of the slowest component. This will likely be the input or output hard drive. It could possibly be the cpu.

You can speed up the hard drive by using raid-0. This will allow two concurrent reads of data from the array.

In this case, consider two raid-0 arrays, one for input, and one for output. If you use just one array, the single drive will become the limiting factor, and you will not improve much.

Since you are prepared to spend $200, consider the two small(work?) drives in raid-0, and get a second 1tb drive and raid-0 it with your existing 1tb drive(output?).
April 1, 2009 5:07:16 AM

Well the wd15eaks (1.5tb) i have now is were i back up the files after im done editing and compiling my media. I also thought about what you said and doing 2 (1.5tb) in a raid 0, but then if something happens i loose all my data.

Therefore i thought for all my editing, OS, and running programs i would use the 320 RAID0 configuration. Once im done everyday with all my editing or movie compilations, i transfer the final data to the 1.5TB to be safely stored.

I heard very good things about the wd15eaks. 1.5tb,32mg cache,7200rpm. I have used them before on similiar machines and the transfer rate is pretty good.
Related resources
a c 167 G Storage
April 1, 2009 5:41:25 AM

re: backup.
I would consider some sort of an external backup device. If the drive is permanently connected to your PC, it is exposed to loss from viruses, malware, fire, or just plain operator error.
You could put your existing 1.5tb drive in an external enclosure, and plug it in when you want to back up.

re: performance.

If I understand the editing process, you take an input file, apply some cpu logic to it, then write it out. Possibly you repeat the process several times until you get a finished product, after which you back it up.
If the editing is limited by the hard drive speed(vs. cpu), then you will perform about as well by just using one drive as input, and a second drive as output. Backing up the output to the 1.5tb drive later.

To make the editing go faster, why not create two raid-0 arrays, using two smaller drives each, one array for input, and one array for output? Even three small drives each might be good.

A couple of other options:

Use two velociraptors, one for input, and one for output. Look at www.storagereview.com, and access their benchmark database for an indication of what different drives can do:
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.p...

The outer rings of larger drives are quite fast. If you bought two 1tb drives, but planned on only using the fastest 10%, you can do very well.
This is called "short stroking"
a b G Storage
April 1, 2009 3:20:02 PM

If you prefer Western Digital (as we do here),
I'd recommend that you switch to PMR
(perpendicular magnetic recording); and,
if you can afford them, their HDDs with 5-year
warranties.

When we compute cost-per-warranty-year,
the more expensive WD HDDs come out ahead
for several reasons.


MRFS
!