Buying 2 new drives for RAID 0 - advice?

atomicvai

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
29
0
18,540
1
I have some money to burn and want to replace my current drives in my main system. I don't need large capacity, I just want speed. Money is not making this decision for me. Which is going to give me the fastest performance. Whatever I go with will be in RAID 0 config.

1. 2 x SEAGATE 500GB Barracuda 7200.12 SATA II w/ 16MB Cache
2. 2 x Western Digital 640GB Caviar Black 7200rpm SATA II w/ 32MB Cache
3. 2 x Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 10,000 RPM SATA II w/ 16MB Cache

I get conflicting info when I try to find some solid reviews etc... so any advice/suggestions is welcomed.
 

maximiza

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2007
830
0
19,010
5
I have heard raid is 50% the controller and 50% the drives. What raid controller are you using? For the drives I would go option 2, velociraptors are expensive.
 

atomicvai

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
29
0
18,540
1
Still haven't seen anything to sway me off the raptors... grabbing them in the next hour unless someone has a better suggestion for performance... not price/performance.
 

tecmo34

Administrator
Moderator
Atomicvai... I would go for the Vraptors. I have one in my system and it is great. Running it in RAID0 will be even faster. I asked a similar question to RAID0 with two WD hard drives or one Vraptor and the overwelming feedback was go with the one Vraptor due to the risk of losing data with a RAID0.

If price isn't an option, I would go with option #3 with a WD 1TB Black in RAID1 for backup & security. Whatever you do just stay away from Seagate at this time. They are having way too much drive freezing issues with their hard drives.
 

atomicvai

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
29
0
18,540
1
I lied, I didnt have time to hit the store today on my way home. So still open to thoughts.

What are you basing 10k being useless? Just want more info.

As for data, all my important data is stored on an external mirrored drive, so not concerned about an internal data drive.

I wish I could find some direct benches between the raptors and the 640 blacks in Raid 0.
 

MRFS

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2008
1,331
0
19,360
40
p.s. and, format your RAID 0 array with one small partition (first drive letter)
and one or more larger partitions (second+ drive letters). This setup will
exploit the benefits of "short strokes" of the read/write heads,
resulting in shorter access times when accessing the first drive letter.


GOOD LUCK!



MRFS
 

atomicvai

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
29
0
18,540
1
Thanks for more info guys. I do already partition my current raid 0 setup that way, so I should be good there.... and completely don't care about data loss on the raid drives if something dies.

I thought the 750's weren't as fast as the 640's? The other side of this is I really only need a total size of maybe 200gb for my OS and software I run, so bigger for me is almost a hindrance... I think this is why I keep leaning towards the Raports.... I just won't use 1TB of space since all my data is stored externally.
 

boulard83

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,250
0
19,290
1
2x 7200rpm 32mb cache are cheaper VS a single 10ks.

Your choice ;)

NEWEGG.COM :

WD640gb 7200rpm 32mb 79.99$
WD500gb 7200rpm 32mb 74.99$

WD150gb 10000rpm 16mb 179.99$
WD300gb 10000rpm 16mb 229.99$

Fujitsu 147gb 15000rpm 16mb 189.99$
Fujitsu 300gb 15000rpm 16mb 339.99$

My choice ..... RAID 0 WD500 or 640. if you have the MONEY .. Raid 0 10k ...
 

atomicvai

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
29
0
18,540
1
Aware of the RE's, but not in carried at the place I typically go, so not something I can get tomorrow... I am not patient. Think I've decided on 3x150gb raptors.
 

MRFS

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2008
1,331
0
19,360
40
Copy that: I'm in the habit of using the term "Raptor"
to refer to the older versions of WD's 10,000 rpm SATA HDD,
and I've been using the term "VelociRaptor" abbreviated "VR"
to refer to the newest version of WD's 10,000 rpm SATA HDD.

Old habits die hard, I guess. :)


> Ive never read about the 15ks, anything to say about it MRFS ?

If you're considering 15,000 rpm HDDs, from my reading only
and not from direct experience, I would balance the storage
subsystem with full-blown SAS functionality i.e. wire the drives
to a SAS-capable RAID controller with hardware parity.

You may as well, because those are enterprise-class drives
that smoke tires e.g. see Seagate's 2 lines here
(Savvio and Cheetah):

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/savvio/
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/cheetah/


I also read somewhere -- recently -- that Seagate have
pre-announced 15,000 rpm SAS drives with a SATA/6G
interface. That series is worth looking into, for the near future.

Aha, here it is:

http://www.storagereview.com/newest_cheetahs

Cheetah ® 15K.7 Drive Specifications

* Capacity 600, 450, 300GB
* Interface 6Gb/s SAS-2.0, 4Gb/s FC
* Spindle Speed 15,000 RPM
* Seek Time 3.4 ms
* Reliability 0.55% AFR / 1.6M hours MTBF
* Cache 16MB
* Form factor 3.5-inch


SATA/6G is being discussed on the Internet now.

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=580


MRFS

 

MRFS

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2008
1,331
0
19,360
40
p.s. for rotating disks with outstanding performance,
a 15,000 rpm SAS drive with perpendicular magnetic
recording ("PMR") is about THE BEST you can buy,
presently. These drives are now moving raw binary digits
under the read/write heads at about 150MB/second!

Your mileage may vary.


MRFS
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY