Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7200 SATA RAID 0 vs 10000 RPM no RAID

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 21, 2004 7:30:18 PM

Which is faster:
1.) 2X 160GB SATA NCQ II Drives in a RAID 0 configuration
or
2.) 1X WD Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM single drive ??
How much faster are either of these configurations verses a WD Caviar Special Edition ATA100 - 120GB PATA drive?

Thanks.
October 21, 2004 8:55:28 PM

Depends on what you're doing. If you're loading a lot of small files then the raptor will be the fastest. If you're manipulating large files, then the raid array.

s signature has been formatted to fit your scr
October 25, 2004 2:42:38 PM

I will most likely be working with larger files.
Which SATA NCQII Drives do you like the most for RAID 0?

Thanks.
Related resources
October 26, 2004 1:26:29 AM

Since the access time is faster on the Raptor, that will be faster most of the time. If you are video editing or such, the RAID array will be faster. I was going to get 2 200 GB WD's in RAID 0, but I got a good deal on Raptors, and decided to go with 2 74GB Raptors in RAID 0. In that case, you get fast access times and fast read/write speeds due to the array. A RAID 0 array will always beat a single drive Raptor ( well unless you are using 8.4 GB drives, lol.) It depends what the drives will be used for. I use my system for video editing, so the Raptors really help. According to HD Tach, the Raptor tag team gets 112 MB read, and about 80 MB read.

<A HREF="http://www26.brinkster.com/amdgamer1/main.html" target="_new">http://www26.brinkster.com/amdgamer1/main.html&lt;/A>
October 26, 2004 8:50:35 PM

I bought two WD SATA 160GB Caviar drives and am running them in a RAID0, I use my rig for gaming, video editing, 3D rendering, etc... wish I would have spent a couple extra $s on the Seagates for the NCQ, not that I'm unhappy with the WD's, but just for bragging rights.
!