Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best HDDs for storage in Raid 0 or 10 ?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 16, 2011 5:07:56 AM

Hello,

In my next build, I'll have a OCZ Vertex 3 for my OS, probably 120Gb, unless something better comes out before mid-July. I've looked around, and found that the best alternative for fast storage would be to build myself a RAID array. I've got a Cooler Master HAF X, that means 5 3.5" bays.
My SSD taking one, that leaves me with the option to add 4 new HDDs.
The thing is, I'm debating whether or not I need the redundancy of RAID 10 (and have the speed of RAID 0), or if I should simply go with 4 HDDs in RAID 0, and have more storage at my disposal.

I know that RAID does not protect against viruses and malware, that's why I have an external 2TB drive for backups.

Since I'll probably buy 2TB HDDs, that would mean 4Gb vs 8Gb of storage. If there's a big price drop on 3TB HDDs before mid-July, I might go with them.
I've had my eye for some time on those Seagate drives :

2TB : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
3TB : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I've read many positive reviews about them, and the 64MB of cache is a really nice addition. I'd be using them with a SATA 2 port (3Gb/s), since the performance decrease is minimal in synthetic benchmarks, compared to when they are used with SATA 3 (6Gb/s). In real life use, the difference must not even be noticeable.

So, my questions are :

1) Should I go with RAID 0 or RAID 10 ?

2) Are these good drives for a RAID array ? If not, why ? Which would you recommend instead ?

Thank you for your help,
al360ex

More about : hdds storage raid

April 16, 2011 6:28:45 AM

my personal choice for storage is a raid5. with a 5 you'll lose 1 drive with a 10 you'll lose half your drives. with a 5 you really need a controller unless you arent concerned with speed...

So its up to you.. do you wanna spend 4x170 for 4tb in a raid10 or risk data loss with multiple drives in a raid0?

What I did a couple of years ago was to build a file server for my mp3 collection. I put in a 140 dollar raid5 controller (cause the mobo I had didnt support raid5) and 3 of these in a supermicro 5into3 bay enclosure (for easy install and removal):

1tb WD RE3 drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

but if 2tb isnt enough you can go with the 2tb version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... and get 4tb useable.

I know they are more expensive but they are designed for raid use where as common drives arent. Sure regular drives will work ok for a raid 0 or even 10 but then you lose redundancy (raid0) or have to buy twice as many drives (raid10). If you go raid5 you get redundancy and save money on drives since you only need 3 minimum.
m
0
l
April 16, 2011 4:12:28 PM

shin0bi272 said:
my personal choice for storage is a raid5. with a 5 you'll lose 1 drive with a 10 you'll lose half your drives. with a 5 you really need a controller unless you arent concerned with speed...


I know that RAID 5 is the best way to go...But I have an Asus Rampage III Formula loaded with 1 sound card and 3 water-cooled EVGA GTX 580 FTW Hydro Copper 2. I don't have any other PCIe 2.0 16x slot. The only 2 slots I have left are a PCIe 2.0 1x and a PCI slot. And I haven't seen a RAID card (a good one, that is) that will fit into these slots.
So I have to use the raid controller on my motherboard. And that means RAID 5 is out of the question...I won't spend 800$ on a RAID array and have it run very slow, even if it's only for storage.

So, as I said before, my only two options are either RAID 0 or 10. The thing I really wanted to know is this : are HDDs failure really happening that often ? Because it's never happened to me before. But then, I've never built a RAID array before either.

As for the drives you mentioned...They're kind of "green" and rated at 5400RPM. That's slow nowadays for an HDD.

I've made a little more research, and it looks like Hitatchi drives are the way to go...they seem to have the lowest failure rates in the industry.
I also decided to make the move to Enterprise-Class hard drives. Since I'm probably going to use this array on at least 3-4 builds, and I change every year and a half or so, that means I need HDDs that will last about 4-6 years.
This is the one that caught my eye : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

m
0
l
April 17, 2011 12:52:30 PM

If your box is that full already you might want to consider either a nas or a dedicated file server... no sense putting 2-6 hard drives in a case and adding all that extra heat and wiring just so you can keep it all in 1 space... specially if you have water cooling in that box. Make that your game rig and build a file server for storage. Just an Idea though.

Ideally no hard drives shouldnt fail but the reason for redundancy is just in case they do. Ive been running my array for 2 years 24/7 and only shut the pc down a handful of times with no problems what so ever. But if one of them does die i wont lose my entire mp3 collection. If you arent looking for redundancy and you want speed and some extra space then 0 is fine.

about the "green" drives ... not with enterprise :) 
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=50

They are variable speed though to save electricity.

The hitachi are a few bucks cheaper and if your research is correct and they have a lower failure rate then I might grab some of them when I upgrade my raid... getting over half way on the current set of disks so need to start planning for an upgrade :) 

m
0
l
!