Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hard drives: Serial ATA Vs. Raid

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
May 7, 2004 1:23:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I'm considering the following two hard drive options and wanted to get some
feedback.

(1) 120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
(2) 240G RAID 0 (2 x 120GB SATA HDDs)

Obviously #2 has more storage space, but other than that what kind of
speed/performance benefits can I expect from the RAID. It's a $100 more and
I'm just trying to decide if the difference is really worth the money. The
extra storage space is negligible, but if the performance is a significant
difference I may take the plunge.

Thanks,
Phillip
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 5:50:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Faster, but twice as likely to fail. If one drive fails, you lose all 240GB.

Tom
"Phillip" <phillip@msn.com> wrote in message
news:109n6vblc4a0m5c@corp.supernews.com...
> I'm considering the following two hard drive options and wanted to get
some
> feedback.
>
> (1) 120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
> (2) 240G RAID 0 (2 x 120GB SATA HDDs)
>
> Obviously #2 has more storage space, but other than that what kind of
> speed/performance benefits can I expect from the RAID. It's a $100 more
and
> I'm just trying to decide if the difference is really worth the money. The
> extra storage space is negligible, but if the performance is a significant
> difference I may take the plunge.
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
>
>
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 10:43:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

RAID 0 is super fast, however, there is no fault tolerance whatsoever with
RAID 0.
"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:IZGdnTfJ5YaDUQbdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> Faster, but twice as likely to fail. If one drive fails, you lose all
240GB.
>
> Tom
> "Phillip" <phillip@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:109n6vblc4a0m5c@corp.supernews.com...
> > I'm considering the following two hard drive options and wanted to get
> some
> > feedback.
> >
> > (1) 120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
> > (2) 240G RAID 0 (2 x 120GB SATA HDDs)
> >
> > Obviously #2 has more storage space, but other than that what kind of
> > speed/performance benefits can I expect from the RAID. It's a $100 more
> and
> > I'm just trying to decide if the difference is really worth the money.
The
> > extra storage space is negligible, but if the performance is a
significant
> > difference I may take the plunge.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phillip
> >
> >
>
>
Related resources
May 10, 2004 1:14:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> RAID 0 is super fast, however, there is no fault tolerance whatsoever with
> RAID 0.

I assume you mean unlike RAID 1, there is no automatic back up of
information. If a drive fails, you loose both. But the performance benefits
make it significantly faster than just a 240 gig drive, correct?

I would be interested in hearing anyone's opinions who actually have used a
RAID 0 set up as I will be doing some video editing on this system.

Thanks,
Phillip


> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:IZGdnTfJ5YaDUQbdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> > Faster, but twice as likely to fail. If one drive fails, you lose all
> 240GB.
> >
> > Tom
> > "Phillip" <phillip@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:109n6vblc4a0m5c@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I'm considering the following two hard drive options and wanted to get
> > some
> > > feedback.
> > >
> > > (1) 120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
> > > (2) 240G RAID 0 (2 x 120GB SATA HDDs)
> > >
> > > Obviously #2 has more storage space, but other than that what kind of
> > > speed/performance benefits can I expect from the RAID. It's a $100
more
> > and
> > > I'm just trying to decide if the difference is really worth the money.
> The
> > > extra storage space is negligible, but if the performance is a
> significant
> > > difference I may take the plunge.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Phillip
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 12:03:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I ran a Raid 0 system in my Dimension 4550 for awhile. I also did video
editing (among other things).

I found the processor more limiting than the disk speed. Today's drives are
very fast.

I wouldn't risk it (and don't anymore).

Tom
"Phillip" <phillip@msn.com> wrote in message
news:109v3jcjoobou48@corp.supernews.com...
> > RAID 0 is super fast, however, there is no fault tolerance whatsoever
with
> > RAID 0.
>
> I assume you mean unlike RAID 1, there is no automatic back up of
> information. If a drive fails, you loose both. But the performance
benefits
> make it significantly faster than just a 240 gig drive, correct?
>
> I would be interested in hearing anyone's opinions who actually have used
a
> RAID 0 set up as I will be doing some video editing on this system.
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
>
>
> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:IZGdnTfJ5YaDUQbdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> > > Faster, but twice as likely to fail. If one drive fails, you lose all
> > 240GB.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > > "Phillip" <phillip@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:109n6vblc4a0m5c@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > I'm considering the following two hard drive options and wanted to
get
> > > some
> > > > feedback.
> > > >
> > > > (1) 120GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
> > > > (2) 240G RAID 0 (2 x 120GB SATA HDDs)
> > > >
> > > > Obviously #2 has more storage space, but other than that what kind
of
> > > > speed/performance benefits can I expect from the RAID. It's a $100
> more
> > > and
> > > > I'm just trying to decide if the difference is really worth the
money.
> > The
> > > > extra storage space is negligible, but if the performance is a
> > significant
> > > > difference I may take the plunge.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Phillip
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 12:26:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Phillip wrote:

> I would be interested in hearing anyone's opinions who actually have used a
> RAID 0 set up as I will be doing some video editing on this system.

I've got a dual SCSI drive Precision WOrkstation 650 at work running a
RAID 0 configuration. No question it is is very fast. Remember that RAID
0 is only faster when accessing large files sequentially. Small files,
random access, and directory access don't speed up at all. As far as
reliability is concerned, all important files are backed up nightly, an
important precaution even if you don't use RAID.
May 12, 2004 2:19:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom,

> I ran a Raid 0 system in my Dimension 4550 for awhile. I also did video
> editing (among other things).
>
> I found the processor more limiting than the disk speed. Today's drives
are
> very fast.
>
> I wouldn't risk it (and don't anymore).

Thanks for the perspective. Did you ever have any trouble with it or is it
just the risk of losing the data that would keep you away from getting a
RAID 0 again?

I'd appreciate feedback from any others who would like to chime in on the
issue...

-Phillip
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 9:30:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In my case I did have a drive failure, but I back up well, so it didn't
cause a problem. I just didn't find the "Value vs. Risk" to be worth it.

Tom
"Phillip" <phillip@msn.com> wrote in message
news:10a35u14ah04j00@corp.supernews.com...
> Tom,
>
> > I ran a Raid 0 system in my Dimension 4550 for awhile. I also did video
> > editing (among other things).
> >
> > I found the processor more limiting than the disk speed. Today's drives
> are
> > very fast.
> >
> > I wouldn't risk it (and don't anymore).
>
> Thanks for the perspective. Did you ever have any trouble with it or is it
> just the risk of losing the data that would keep you away from getting a
> RAID 0 again?
>
> I'd appreciate feedback from any others who would like to chime in on the
> issue...
>
> -Phillip
>
>
!