The Better Choice?

[Guest]

Which is faster, two IDE RAIDS or a SCSI/IDE combo? Just wondering, and do not take price into consideration. Thanks.

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[FatBurger]

Can you explain more in depth, please? What do you mean by "two IDE RAIDS", and what do you mean by "a SCSI/IDE combo"?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[Guest]

I mean that I would RAID two IDE HD's together. And by the SCSI/IDE combo, well...I would have a SCSI drive for my system files (OS, etc) and a IDE drive for data. So which would be faster?

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[jlanka]

too many variables to give an answer.

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[IntelConvert]

That's an easy choice. Go with a fast SCSI-IDE combo.

With only a 2-drive RAID array, it would either be fast but too unreliable (RAID 0), or very reliable but too slow (RAID 1).

 

[AMD_Man]

Unreliable? That's a common misconception with RAID 0. The chances of a hard drive failing physically are slim unless the drive is faulty in the first place.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[FatBurger]

So you're looking at an IDE RAID 0 or non-RAID single IDE and single SCSI drives, correct?

The best of the two would probably be an IDE RAID 0, which is what I have in my computer at the moment (well, my home computer, I'm at work right now).

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[IntelConvert]

Misconception? - hardly... As an electro-<b>mechanical</b> device, the HDD is the least reliable component in your computer. That's not to suggest that they fail frequently, but their risk of failure is much greater than that of pure electronic components.

<b>If just 1-drive fails in a RAID 0 configuration, the entire RAID device becomes unusable! Therefore, whatever probability is associated with any one drive failing, that probability of failure is doubled when 2 of those same drives are used in a RAID 0 configuration!</b>

 

[AMD_Man]

My oldest system that I still have has had an IBM hard drive for nearly 7 years now. However, it shows no signs that it's failing. And I keep this PC on nearly all day as a "Soltiaire"/E-mail access PC. Anyway, I would predict that the average hard drive lasts 10 years, give or take. My uncle bought a PC back in 1990 and it lastest him until just recently with any repairs or replacement parts.

Anyway, even if a RAID 0 latest half as long as a single drive, 5 years still wouldn't be that bad.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[FatBurger]

In theory, it sounds accurate. However, real life experience (mine and others') does not correlate with what you're saying.

I've got three hard drives in my system, and as the "most prone to failure" component, they're still running great. I got them all in May, when I built my computer. Since then, I've had a motherboard and video card die. So going by that, the hard drive is over 3 times as reliable as anything else in somebody's system.

I love how "logic" can be twisted around any which way you want.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[IntelConvert]

Congratulations on your apparent good luck with your HDDs. From my experience with over 500 PCs (at work naturally!), while many HDDs have lasted a number of years, I have seen disk failures (ranging from re-allocatable bad sectors to catastrophic-crashes) occur after 5 months on quite a number of others. Certainly, even in the forums you must have come across the recent IBM 'Deathstar' episodes, haven't you?

So I want to emphasize what I've said before (because it is factual and really important to understand). <b>If one drive fails in a RAID 0 array, all data on the array is completely lost!</b>

So it's all a matter of what your data is worth to you! But then again, everyone performs backups, don't they?

 

[FatBurger]

<b>If one drive fails in a single drive setup, all data on the drive is lost!</b>

<b>If you format your hard drive, all data on the drive is lost!</b>

<b>If you poke yourself with a fork, it will hurt!</b>

<b>If you play with fire, you will get burned!</b>


Sorry, I just hate it when people go crazy predicting the end of the world or whatnot.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[Guest]

If that's the case, I can RAID two drives and then get an extra IDE drive to backup my important data. Will this work?

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[FatBurger]

And that's exactly what I'm doing right now. I have a 10GB WD drive to back up pertinent info. I also back up the most important stuff to CD.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[Guest]

Ok, I've made up my mind then. Will do the RAID config and get an extra HD outside the RAID config to back up data on. Thanks guys, really appreciate it. I'll tell you my system specs once I get it built.

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[AMD_Man]

Same here.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[Guest]

Um...anyone know any good HD's that would be good for backup? Needs to be about 10GB, doesn't have to be fancy, and somewhere around 20 bucks.

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[Guest]

Also, if I was going to use a RAID-0 config with two 120GB HD's w/8MB Cache, would it be better to use a 64-bit controller in a 64-bit PCI slot, or will 32-bit do?

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[Guest]

BUMP....been gone for awhile.

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[Harisahmed]

Who's Jack Burton?

 

[Guest]

Big Trouble in Little China

"What's that?" --Jack

"A SIX DEMON BAG!" --Egg

 

[tdean]

wouldnt they both be the same? i mean, it will only go as fast as the slowest component, which is the ide.

....the birds seemed to be calling him, thought caw....

 

[Guest]

No, the RAID-0 config is faster than if they were seperate drives. But what I am asking is if I use two massive 120GB IDE drives with 8MB cache, would 32-bit be enough, or should I go for a 64-bit slot with a 64-bit controller?

Jack Burton is a great man...

 

[Kidane]

20 bucks?!?! No way. Even a 10 gig will cost about $40, if not more. At least it does where I live (in Sweden) - I just bought two 20 gig HDs for 1,000 kr each (about $100 each).

Kidane


Det finns inget dåligt väder - bara dåliga kläder

 

[Guest]

I don't give a [-peep-] about the HD cost, I already got that covered, but thanks for the info. My question is the 64-bit vs. 32-bit. Seems like no one wants to answer that...

Jack Burton is a great man...