Velociraptors

Touching 100% gain (old rule of thumb was 60%) but tech has came on.

Again I will not give a figure for 1st as its hard to say, depends on your hardware/software.
 
I found 2 x 150gb raptors flakey tbh. Probably my onboard controller. But love my 300gb velociraptor. In my instance it was better. In yours it may not be . . . . Weigh up the pros and cons. Personally, id go for the veloci.

Edit: Just notcied its veloci's for both . . .hmm . . . . oops.

Whats your onboard controller like?
 
Onboard seems ok although I would prefer to have a seperate quality controller but then how far do you go and at what cost?

A more affordable option would be to stick with the onboard controller for now.

helmutcheese - do you think 100% gain with RAID0 ?
 
Are you considering reliability too? Due to the speed the drivers spin at there's already going to be a higher chance of scratching the plates, and then that's doubled with using RAID 0.
 
Jayos said:
Onboard seems ok although I would prefer to have a seperate quality controller but then how far do you go and at what cost?

A more affordable option would be to stick with the onboard controller for now.

helmutcheese - do you think 100% gain with RAID0 ?
Click to expand...

You do not need a Controller these days, the onboard is suffice and the extra few CPU cycles it uses is nothing to modern CPU's.

There is also other things like error corrections etc but that's mainly used in servers.

I have already stated I will not give a figure due to multiple reasons to do with your set up.

Last peep who asked I gave him the "old rule of thumb" for Raid0 of 60% and added he may get higher.

He got nearly 100% gain so you will need wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Stonedofmoo said:
That really is nonsense :)
Click to expand...

I read it on Gizmodo yesterday.

Why They Die
Remember how I said the head usually never touches the drive's platter surface? When the head actually does touch the drive platter, it's what's called a head crash (check out the video above), and it means you're skee-rewed. Normally the head flies on a tiny pocket of air, but a single particle can make the head bounce on the disk, totally hosing the magnetic layer, especially at higher RPMs. And it just gets worse from there, because stuff scraped away by a head crash making it more likely that more head crashes will happen. More mundanely, the delicate mechanical parts eventually just wear out over time, which is typically measured by the the drive's rated mean time between failures. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot you can do to predict when your drive is gonna go down in flames, unless you bought a drive from a series suffering manufacturing defects.
Click to expand...

With regards to it being less reliable in RAID 0 I thought that would be common sense. If one drive is likely to fail during the first year at say 5% of the time (random percent I made up) then the chance of one of the two drives failing must be 10%.

Which bit of my post was wrong?
 
Last edited:
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, its TOTAL TOSH TBH.

The VelicoRaptor unlike previous HDD's does not even park the head(s) on the platter at standby.

The fact it spins faster only means the cushion of air the Head runs on will be higher pressure and it has even less change of hitting the patters while running unless you decide to drop your PC from 2-3 feet onto the floor.

Chances of a car getting a flat tyre is 2x more than a motorbike BIG DEAL ! how often does it happen.

I tell you what is COMMON SENSE > EVERYONE should have a backup be it Single HDD use or Raid (any type) they run in main PC. ;)
 
Last edited:
Kemik said:
If one drive is likely to fail during the first year at say 5% of the time (random percent I made up) then the chance of one of the two drives failing must be 10%.
Not quite 10% but close. If you look at the disks individually then it doesn't matter if it's 1 drive or 100 drives, the chance of any one drive failing is still 5%. If you look at RAID0 however, if 1 drive fails, then the whole "drive" fails, so then the chances do increase.
In the 5% scenario with 2 drives it's 1-((1-0.05)^2) = 0.0975 or 9.75%. 3 disks makes it 14.2625% RAID1 is easier to work out - the chance of BOTH drives failing would be 5% x 5% = 0.25%
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Kemik said:
Which bit of my post was wrong?
Click to expand...

All of it, and that post is simply not true. Think about it, every server you can buy uses 10 or 15k rpm drives. Why would they use them if according to that articles logic all that mission critical data could be destroyed at any time by a factor of how many drives are fitted?

That really is nonsense. 10k and 15k drives are designed to run at those speeds, it's not like they're a slower model with the motor turned up :)
 
PistolPete said:
RAID1 is easier to work out - the chance of BOTH drives failing would be 5% x 5% = 0.25%
Click to expand...

Surely RAID1 would be better than this if you act on any array warnings (and ignoring common mode/cause failures of course). It would be the probability of either drive failing in the year multiplied by the probability that the second drive failed before you replaced the first one. Or something like that :D.
 
PistolPete said:
RAID1 is easier to work out - the chance of BOTH drives failing would be 5% x 5% = 0.25%
Click to expand...
What???:confused:

Thats rubbish! the failiure rate of the discs in raid1 is the same as in raid0. It is still two discs! how you are using them is irrellavent and has no bearing on the likelyhood of them failing!:o
 
vertica said:
What???:confused:

Thats rubbish! the failiure rate of the discs in raid1 is the same as in raid0. It is still two discs! how you are using them is irrellavent and has no bearing on the likelyhood of them failing!:o
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the failure rate of the individual drives (which won't change between RAID0 and RAID1) and the failure rate of the array (which will). PistolPete was talking about the array.

BRs
 
vertica said:
What???:confused:

Thats rubbish! the failiure rate of the discs in raid1 is the same as in raid0. It is still two discs! how you are using them is irrellavent and has no bearing on the likelyhood of them failing!:o
Click to expand...

He is talking about the likelyhood of loosing the data contained on those drives.

The likely hood of RAID 1 total failure is 5% x 5% which is 0.25%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom