Spec me 2 320gb drives for RAID0 and a RAID controller card

Hades · 27 Nov 2008 at 20:01

I'm after a pair of 320gb drives for RAID0. not sure on budget but need to get an idea of what the best drives are. Also is a RAID controller worth it if I can afford a low end model or am I better off with the onboard controller?

Stonedofmoo · 28 Nov 2008 at 07:54

Western Digital RE3 320Gb drives. a plugin Raid controller isn't worth it, use the onboard because unless you're going to spend well over £100 you won't be getting a proper hardware controller anyhow.

JeffyB · 28 Nov 2008 at 08:36

Another vote for the 320gb wd re3's great drives, i have 3 other 250gb drives in raid 0 very happy with them.

Hades · 28 Nov 2008 at 10:13

Thanks guys. They were on my list anyway so it's good to confirm.

Any more opinions on the value of a cheap RAID card over onboard RAID? I certainly don't want to spend anywhere near £100 so if I won't get the benefit then I'll leave the card.

HEADRAT · 28 Nov 2008 at 10:17

I think I'd go for 3 x 250GB

rpstewart · 28 Nov 2008 at 10:43

Hades said:
Any more opinions on the value of a cheap RAID card over onboard RAID? I certainly don't want to spend anywhere near £100 so if I won't get the benefit then I'll leave the card.

For RAID0 the only benefit of an add in card is the ability to move the array easily to another mobo. If you're booting from the array then you'd need to do a reinstall anyway so it's even less of a benefit.

Go with the onboard controller.

bledd · 28 Nov 2008 at 12:31

rpstewart said:
For RAID0 the only benefit of an add in card is the ability to move the array easily to another mobo. If you're booting from the array then you'd need to do a reinstall anyway so it's even less of a benefit.

Go with the onboard controller.

yup

chris.dante · 28 Nov 2008 at 14:05

I'm think of getting 2 hd to raid as well so thanks for the info

Hades · 30 Nov 2008 at 00:10

HEADRAT said:
I think I'd go for 3 x 250GB

Interesting option there. But I'd probably lean towards 2 x 320gb for the following reasons:

The 320gb drives have higher density per platter and so each single drive would be faster than a single 250gb.
It's cheaper.
Uses less power and noise.
Even more chance of a failure.

But you're probably right that 3 x 250's would be faster overall.

JeffyB · 30 Nov 2008 at 03:33

Not so the 250gb versions are short stroked so use the fastest part of the disc thats why the 320gb is cheaper i believe.
Heres my 3x250gb re3'3
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12862380&postcount=880

Stonedofmoo · 30 Nov 2008 at 11:06

What JeffyB said is correct. I too have 3* 250Gb drives, but in all honest I feel if I lost one it would not make any noticable difference in windows performance.

malcolm · 30 Nov 2008 at 16:58

If I use two 320's in Raid 0 with a boot partition of (say) 100Gbytes, would that partition be guaranteed to be the outer tracks of the two discs?

I'll be using an Asus P5Q Pro, on board controller.

Just wondering if that would be effectively the same as 'short stroking' the platter like the 250Gbyte discs.