Hard drives: Serial ATA Vs. Raid

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
7 answers Last reply
More about hard drives serial raid
  1. 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
    >
    >
  2. 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
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  3. 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
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  4. 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
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell NAS / RAID Hard Drives Performance Computers