Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2 HDD onSATA 3.0 or 4 HDD on SATA 2

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 6, 2010 6:12:35 AM

Hi everyone

Recently upgraded my system, currently running as follows: i7-930, 6gb g.skill DDR3 (2000), Gigabyte GA-X58-UD5 and 4x Hitachi 7200 RPM HDDs (500gb). Also kept my old video card (nvidia 7900 gs) and used the extra cash on the Apple 30" cinema display

I do photo editing and some video editing so I've gone for a RAID 0 setup. Being new to RAID, I've plugged 2 of my drives into the Marvel 9128 sockets. Problem is there' only 2 of these sockets onboard so my other 2 drives aren't on the array.

After doing some reading here - and correct me if I'm wrong - I understand that 7200 HDDs can't utilise SATA 3.0 - that can only be done by SSDs. I ran a few tests of my HDDs and here are the scores.





Based on what I've read, I also understand that running 4 HDDs on RAID 0 will be faster than running 2 HDDs on RAID 0. Given that HDDs can't operate at SATA 3.0 speeds, it seems logical that I'd get better performance from running 4 HDDs @ RAID 0 on the 'normal' SATA 2.0 chipset (which my MB supports) rather than using 2 on SATA 3.0. Just want the advice of experts before I format and reinstall everything.

If I change over to the 4 HDDs I'll redo the above tests and post the results here.
:D 

More about : hdd onsata hdd sata

July 6, 2010 9:29:11 PM

Well I just did the reinstall and the test - it's TWICE as fast according to the results. Will post image later.
m
0
l
July 6, 2010 9:45:49 PM

With 4 drives in raid 0, you stand a way higher chance of losing data than only 2.

If you do it, back-up regularly.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 99 G Storage
July 6, 2010 9:52:48 PM

NO, you miss understand. SATA II drives ARE 3.0Gbps. It's just that they DON'T run at this spec, it's not that they CAN'T. Just a confusion of words, but I think you got it.

Yes, 4xHHD in RAID 0 will be fast(er). I've seen a test the 4xHHD in RAID 0 were actually faster than a SSD. It's called "drive striping." but unless you know about partitions, I won't go any further.

Don't be afraid of RAID 0, just do regular backups as advised by r-sky.

And as for the Marvell connectors, ditch them! They are for SATA III 6.0Gbps anyway. And you don't have any drives that will even come close to the spec. Although, they are backwards compatible with SATA II.

You have an Intel based mobo, so use any combition of the (6) SATA II 3.0Gbps ports for the RAID (will require re-install).
Get the latest Intel driver 9.6 for the RAID, and install it upon OS re-install. And set the SATA ports to ACHI in BIOS before doing any of this. (N/A in RAID, ACHI is the default for drives not part of a RAID array.)

But you must have done this already, if you now have a 4xHDD RAID 0, right?
m
0
l
July 7, 2010 10:32:56 AM

Thanks for the responses. I understand that the chance of losing data is higher (I guess 4x higher?!?!) but I'm backing up regularly. Using an external HDD for that and also burn pictures onto DVDs.

Here's the image of the new drive speed.

m
0
l
July 7, 2010 12:58:15 PM

its not actually 4x higher data loss

consider this

if the chance of losing a drive is 5%, that means 95% of the time you're good

the chances of having all 4 drives be good (which is what you need for a stable raid0) is .95 ^ 4

which is about .814

this means your chances of losing data is .186, or slightly less than 4x the chance without the raid.....yeah its close to 4x, but not exactly
m
0
l
a c 99 G Storage
July 8, 2010 2:42:06 AM

Those banchmarks are faster than my 2xIntel X25-V 40GB in RAID 0 marks.

Mine reads peaked at over 400MBps, but averaged 305MBps.

You kill my write speeds, but that's what SSDs do.

Kudos Mister! :hello: 
m
0
l
!