Raid 0 vs 10000rpm drives

Ahh, I was tinkering with getting another hitachi (x5) but now maybe starting a new array with some newer drives would be better, maybe 2 drives to start off with, then at least I could get another drive or two in the near future.

My m8s always picked on my antique raid array but now I now raid was the right way to go.

ta
 
h1.jpg


thats mine atm
valociraptor for the win
 
Cupra said:
its 2x300gb valociraptor... i just have it in 2 sections "just in case"
Click to expand...

Mirrir with RAID0 speed, forget what its called :rolleyes: (does that protect against bad blocks?)
Very wise, I once turned on my pc only to find the RAID BIOS claiming the array was not bootable :eek:
Well I lost everything, now make regular backups & have found a program that can recover a damaged array, untested though lol.
 
I dont know if its hardware RAID on a Gigabyte P35 mobo.
I ran HDTach just before this & I think it was still running in the background after I closed it.
 
I've been thinking of replacing my 2 x 74gb RAID 0 raptors for a while now.. I can't believe how slow they are now though ! :(

raptorsraid0ri7.jpg


Velociraptor has silly performance with a silly price tag.. I think I will skip those ;)

Anyone suggest what to replace my raptors with ?

CPU is an E8400 clocked at 4050mhz incase anyone was wondering
 
Last edited:
I can see by the tests that a new 10000rpm drive is fast, but how about regular usage as in random access etc. in Windows?
Surely multiple drives though limited by their inherent individual limitations, when used in multiples on a RAID0 array would be better in Windows, eg. with a 6x drive array then each drive only has to access 1/6 of a file, which sounds quicker than 1 drive having to access a whole file.
 
juno_first said:
I can see by the tests that a new 10000rpm drive is fast, but how about regular usage as in random access etc. in Windows?
Surely multiple drives though limited by their inherent individual limitations, when used in multiples on a RAID0 array would be better in Windows, eg. with a 6x drive array then each drive only has to access 1/6 of a file, which sounds quicker than 1 drive having to access a whole file.
Click to expand...

but then thats a lot of workt he pc is doing splitting the file into all the peices and putting it int he right place

but your right
 
since going to raid ive dropped my expensive drives for some cheaper ones.

i have 3 cheap 250gb single platter seagates for a total cost of £75 2nd hand and i get 280/290MB/s read over a 200GB RAID0 array and a 11ms access time.

not bad for £75 and onboard raid controller.

hddbench.jpg


StevenG
 
well imo you're better off paying good money for SSD instead of a velociraptor for the OS, and grabbing 2 or 3 250/320gb drives to raid if you need fast scratch/temp drive space.

velociraptors don't have the amazing access times of the SSD nor the raw speed of smaller drives raid'ed together AND they cost a fortune.
 
marscay said:
well imo you're better off paying good money for SSD instead of a velociraptor for the OS, and grabbing 2 or 3 250/320gb drives to raid if you need fast scratch/temp drive space.

velociraptors don't have the amazing access times of the SSD nor the raw speed of smaller drives raid'ed together AND they cost a fortune.
Click to expand...

imo raid 0 valociraptor just get the smaller ones sdd still suck and your p nly paying to help them get developed
 
The only problem with these benchmarks above is they're being done using a small partition of the total space of the drives so you can't see the performance drop off as the data goes towards the center of the discs.
 
When I mentioned earlier my drives copy at 90mb/sec I meant copying a large file across the drives as in reading/writing at the same time.
I dont think any single drive would handle that very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom