what would be better

paradisiac

paradisiac

paradisiac

Soldato
Joined
22 Mar 2009
Posts
7,754
Location
Cornwall
ok, my main hard drive (160GB) is getting quite full now, so i am thinking of upgrading it. which would be better 1x320GB SATA drive or 2x150GB SATA drives raided?
this pc is mainly for gaming so not sure if raid will make much difference.

thanks in advance
 
Well, in terms of performance a RAID 0 array is nice n' quick and you get a lot of storage, It should be faster in windows than a single drive. However, booting usually takes longer and there is the risk that if one drive fails (it does happen) then you loose all data on both.

There is ofcourse RAID 1 which is also fast (very quick reads) but only has half the storage (as one drive is mirroring the first) and has the same delay booting up. However, with RAID 1 if one drive fails, your data should be safe as an exact copy is on the remaining drive.

So, as you can see, there are advantages and disadvantages. However, there is a limit to how cheap mechanical hard disks can be, they all need platters, casing etc. - so buying 2x 250GB drives will actually cost significantly more than a single 500GB samsung F3. Also, if you bear in mind that a single 160/250/320GB hard disk is a good chunk slower than the speedy Samsung F3 - then getting a single fast drive makes the most sense.
 
i have 2 160GB drives at the moment which is why i asked. it will be for windows and programs only so if 1 dies its not the end of the world, if i only had 1 500GB drive and that died i would be in the same situation. i basically want to get the best performance i can without spending a fortune on SSD drives.
 
also would it be better to fresh install or clone my existing drive? everything works fine and is set how i want it, just running very low on space
 
I'd go with the single F3 over a couple of old 160GB drives in RAID0...

If you're going from a single drive to a single drive, cloning will work just fine. It will only get complicated if you want to clone a single drive on to a RAID0 and boot from it.
 
It means it's optimised for use in a RAID array, normally for use within a server or something like that. It's not usually worth spending the extra for home use. As various people have already indicated, the F3 is probably a better bet than that and probably also a better bet than any of the other options you've mentioned.
 
ok, thing is i can get that drive for £15 inc VAT, which is why i asked about it and i already have 2 160GB SATA drives, hence that option, if there is going to be £40 difference in the F1 and F3 then i will go for the F3.
 
That's a different matter. If you'd mentioned that from the start then you'd have saved a lot of pointless discussion. Of course an F1 drive for £15 is going to be a better option, as long as it actually works!
 
its all brand new and sealed. is some stock we had written off at work due to a customer changing their mind.
at the time i was not aware the F1 was here, wasnt until the post asking about it
 
paradisiac said:
all fitted and old drive cloned to it, must admit cant notice a difference in load times, should i? or is the increase marginal?
Click to expand...
You'll have greater throughput, so you should notice some improvements with load times, but obviously you'll still be limited by the drive response times. It's always worth trying a few benchmarks to check you've got everything setup properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom