74G Raptor

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I've seen recommendations for 2 Raptors with RAID in a high end system, plus
a 200G "storage" drive. I've seen recommendations for 1 Raptor with a 200G
storage drive. Is there something special about this combo? Is there
anything wrong with simply using 1 Raptor if you feel it's enough storage
for you?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeffc wrote:
> I've seen recommendations for 2 Raptors with RAID in a high end
system, plus
> a 200G "storage" drive. I've seen recommendations for 1 Raptor with
a 200G
> storage drive. Is there something special about this combo? Is
there
> anything wrong with simply using 1 Raptor if you feel it's enough
storage
> for you?

Yes for the first Q, and No for the 2nd Q. Raptors are VERY fast, but
expensive. 2 Raptors in RAID is much faster still, probably around
double the speed, but at least double the price. A normal 200Gb drive
is slower, but has much more storage space.

If 74Gb will be enough then there's no need to get an additional 200Gb
hd. The reason for them being faster is mainly because they spin at
10,000rpm instead of 7,200rpm, and IIRC I think they may also have a
bigger cache. A lot of us are still using a single 7,200 rpm hard
disk. Another alternative would be two 7,200rpm drives in RAID, which
would probably be faster than a single Raptor, but slower than two
Raptors in RAID.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote...
> I've seen recommendations for 2 Raptors with RAID in a high end system, plus a
> 200G "storage" drive. I've seen recommendations for 1 Raptor with a 200G
> storage drive. Is there something special about this combo? Is there
> anything wrong with simply using 1 Raptor if you feel it's enough storage for
> you?

I have 2 Raptors, and started with them in RAID 0. I found out the hard way how
fragile RAID 0 is under XP. I now have them set up in RAID 1.

A single Raptor is plenty fast -- equivalent to a single U320 SCSI. While you
can gain some performance from RAID 0, it's not worth the risk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <_pWdnb_Ov9_yfOHfRVn-uA@comcast.com>, says...
> "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote...
> > I've seen recommendations for 2 Raptors with RAID in a high end system, plus a
> > 200G "storage" drive. I've seen recommendations for 1 Raptor with a 200G
> > storage drive. Is there something special about this combo? Is there
> > anything wrong with simply using 1 Raptor if you feel it's enough storage for
> > you?
>
> I have 2 Raptors, and started with them in RAID 0. I found out the hard way how
> fragile RAID 0 is under XP. I now have them set up in RAID 1.
>
Heh-heh. You worked out the "double the price for half the
reliability" part then?


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

 

[Fitz]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I've been using 2 36GB Raptors in a RAID 0 config for almost 2 years with no
problems. I back up important files to an ATA HD just in case. Personally, I
think the risk is overstated- like going from riding an airplane twice a
month from once a month- statistically, you double your chances of being in
an accident, but realistically, those odds are still extremely low.

Fitz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

There is NOTHING wrong with using just one Raptor. The use of one or two
Raptors PLUS a 200 GB drive is primarily for people with large video or
music collections.

--
DaveW



"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:FC3fe.7785$tf1.427354@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I've seen recommendations for 2 Raptors with RAID in a high end system,
> plus a 200G "storage" drive. I've seen recommendations for 1 Raptor with
> a 200G storage drive. Is there something special about this combo? Is
> there anything wrong with simply using 1 Raptor if you feel it's enough
> storage for you?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have 2 36gb raptors in a raid 0 as well. Last year one of the
raptors died and I had to restore from backup. I image daily, so not
much was lost. On the other hand, I have had to restore from backup
many times due to virus, a bad program that caused problems in the
system, a program I just wanted to try, etc. The key is daily backups.
I use True Image, don't even notice when it happens.



On Mon, 9 May 2005 10:14:30 -0800, "Fitz" <akfitz@mtaonline.net>
wrote:

>I've been using 2 36GB Raptors in a RAID 0 config for almost 2 years with no
>problems. I back up important files to an ATA HD just in case. Personally, I
>think the risk is overstated- like going from riding an airplane twice a
>month from once a month- statistically, you double your chances of being in
>an accident, but realistically, those odds are still extremely low.
>
>Fitz
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I started out running dual 36gig Raptors in a RAID0.

The dual 36gig RAID0 was for the OS. I had a seperate 250gig for data
storage.

Everything ran fine for a bit more than a year, then I started having
intermittant booting problems.

By this time the newer 74gig Raptors came out, and due to some improvements,
were faster than the older 36gig units.

I finially went with a single 74gig Raptor for the OS, and it's plenty fast.
I now use a 400gig drive for data.

Now that the system was back in operation, I was able to experiment with the
36gig Raptors.

With both 36gig Raptors installed a separate drives, I was able to access
the drives SMART entries and found which of the drives was going bad.

When I had the drives in the RAID0 array, I couldn't access the SMART
entries for the drives.

The 36gig Raptor that went bad was still under warranty (they should all be,
due to the five-year waranty) so I sent it back and got a replacement.

Both of the 36gig Raptors are still alive and running in other systems of
mine.


"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
news:EdydnfoTleVscOLfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> There is NOTHING wrong with using just one Raptor. The use of one or two
> Raptors PLUS a 200 GB drive is primarily for people with large video or
> music collections.
>
> --
> DaveW
>
>
>
> "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:FC3fe.7785$tf1.427354@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I've seen recommendations for 2 Raptors with RAID in a high end system,
>> plus a 200G "storage" drive. I've seen recommendations for 1 Raptor with
>> a 200G storage drive. Is there something special about this combo? Is
>> there anything wrong with simply using 1 Raptor if you feel it's enough
>> storage for you?
>>
>
>

 

[Spajky]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 19:50:26 -0400, "Timothy Drouillard"
<timdrouillard@comcast.net> wrote:

>Both of the 36gig Raptors are still alive and running in other systems of
>mine.

can you do me a favor please?
I need to know only "drive index" result (benching with Sandra), but
with EXACTLY THIS version of it (stipped, no instal, 460kB, read_me
file inside): http://users.volja.net/jerman55/SiSoftSandraMin.zip
would be good to have both results /raid0, single drive/...
TIA !

--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155(at)@[nospam]comcast(dot).net> wrote in message
news:_pWdnb_Ov9_yfOHfRVn-uA@comcast.com...

> "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote...
>
> I have 2 Raptors, and started with them in RAID 0. I found out the hard
> way how fragile RAID 0 is under XP. I now have them set up in RAID 1.
>
> A single Raptor is plenty fast -- equivalent to a single U320 SCSI. While
> you can gain some performance from RAID 0, it's not worth the risk.

Like DH and Fitz, I disagree. I've had 2x36 Raptors in RAID0 for about a
year with no issues, and I'm so well backed up that a failure of the array
will cost me about 30 min. to recover. It's worth the risk, as the speed
makes it so, although the risk is only a matter of the time it takes to
restore a clone and then files backed up since.