1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

raid or raptor

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by regan1985, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. regan1985 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,451 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    Coventry UNI England
    i have looked arround and seen different results and im unsure!

    if i should get 2x80 7200rpm 8.9 seek time w/d and run them in raid or
    1x 86 10k raptor

    which will be the fastest and get me the best results?

    any1?:nutkick:
  2. randomperson21

    randomperson21 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,535 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    i'd say raid
  3. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Personally I'd go for the Raptor because it would be more reliable.
  4. randomperson21

    randomperson21 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,535 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    thats true. if one of your drives fails in raid0, you're basically screwed. but if you monitor it well, you should be able to pull your data before something blows.

    performance-wise though, raid owns.
  5. Alec§taar New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,677 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    Someone who's going to find NewTekie1 and teach hi
    Good point, & the warranty is a "5 year Enterprise Class" one as well... makes sense.

    (I am NOT certain that WD disks other than Raptors carry that kind of coverage, for that long... they didn't used to, but then, things change on this account in the industry (note, other HDD makers followed suit here soon after WD put out that on their "raptors")).

    :)

    * Tough call though on performance though... but, if ANY site has data on this for comparison, it might be this one:

    http://www.storagereview.com

    (After all: It's WHAT THEY DO, solely... they're basically specialists in the area of diskdrives!)

    APK

    P.S.=> They have a 'comparison database' that MIGHT have what you want to compare, possibly in RAID 0 config too, vs. a SINGLE "Raptor" of ANY type (36gb/74gb/150gb)... Good luck, hope you can find a legit comparison here... apk
  6. Pinchy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,109 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    id say RAID
  7. gR3iF

    gR3iF New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,807 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    Hamburg
    raptor raid?^^
    when not raid
  8. GLD

    GLD

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,352 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    136
    I say Raid. Raid 0. Those damn Raptors are to expensive imho, as the price you pay for the storage space you get, is crap. They may be the fastest spinning sata drive, but I would say (unless money is not a issue) get a set of non Raptor's and raid away.
  9. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    We shouldn't be agreeing on HD topics :p

    I don't think the warranty is really relevant. The price of the disk is nothing compared to the data on it. If it dies a new drive won't make you happy, you still lsot your data.

    So if you go RAID, at least be sure to back up everything often.
  10. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,111 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,125
    Dear god, must we have another thread that deep throats the magical wonder of nothing that is a raptor and then swallows the starry eyed wonder spooge-advertising that is the truth in benching whole, only to crap out a Western Digital flavored turd?


    A raptor is a expensive paperweight, a perpendictular recording drive is faster on reads, as well as a single 300Gb Maxtor-Seagate drive. There is a thread here to prove it. Raptors are for itty bitty files that are all over the harddrive. Not contingious large files like movies, games, any sort of anything other than a small system file.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  11. Azn Tr14dZ New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,299 (1.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    I have RAID 0, and so far it's fine. I haven't really lost any data on it....yet. But performance wise it's faster than a single drive (maybe not Raptor)...but then again Raptor's are more $ for less HD space.
  12. Sasqui

    Sasqui

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,460 (2.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,294
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
  13. Pinchy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,109 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    nice find ;)

    "It's like buying a real nice expensive sports car - yes it's fast, but if you're driving in town all day (what we all normally do) it doesn't help much, there is just too much traffic around us; but sometimes you can get on the German autobahn where there are no restrictions - then it's all worth it! "

    lmao great analogy
  14. regan1985 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,451 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    Coventry UNI England
    ok then i think the best for me would be 2 set upa a raid 0 and buy two new sat2 drives im thinking 80 or 160gig should do! but im not sure if its going to make a huge difference on te cache size some are 16 some are 8

    is there a big difference and is it worth spending a little more for 16?
  15. b1lk1

    b1lk1 New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    688 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    raid 0 > raptors
  16. Pinchy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,109 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    someone answer the cache qn...id like to know that :D:p
  17. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,117 (5.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    But access rates are everthing when it comes to games.
  18. Pinchy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,109 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    *just asking*

    doesnt the hard drive/hard drive speed only come in with the loading times in games, not in actually playing the game itself?
  19. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,117 (5.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    Games will still access the hard drive from time to time, and they normal do not read from the same file over and over, that's why the faster the access rate you have the better.
  20. Pinchy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,109 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    dont games just access the hdd to save files and stuff?
  21. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Depends on the game and the rest of your system. It's of course prefered to load everything into the RAM and not access the drive.
  22. Sasqui

    Sasqui

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,460 (2.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,294
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
    A lot of games load new info (and sometimes lots) from HDD when switching levels. Of course when starting a game, there's a whole bunch of stuff coming from the HDD
  23. Pinchy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,109 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    lol i get sooo much contradicting info

    *head explodes*
  24. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    10,746 (3.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,189
    To answer the cache question, yes more is better. Always. And for Raid 0, I have two 80GB Hitachi drives that are nearly as fast (97MB/s reads) as two 36gb raptors in raid (99MB/s on same controller, same setup).

    Part of the performance goes into the proper setup. If's it's configured wrong for your systems, you won't be able to take advantage of it.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  25. Tonyjack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    18 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Last year I bought 2 raptors and put them in raid 0. it was fast but one of the drive failed and I lost everything, I mean EVERYTHING. It never tells you it's going to fail, it just fails, no "monitoring" will tell you: your drive is failling, make a backup! And it happens, more often than people seem to think.

    Sure the drive was replaced free of charge, but I lost some work and a lot of time...

    After, I installed the 2 raptors not using raid. There was little to no performance loss. If you install windows and the swap file on one drive and every other programs on the second drive, it's really fast, mainly cause windows can swap on a drive and your programs can use the second one and not be interrupted in their reading/writing tasks. This configuration is about as fast as a raid 0 installation except maybe if you do a lot of photoshop or video editing or music recording and such, where you have to work with huge files.

    For every day use and gaming, raid is not going to make a difference worth the risk.

    raptors are the best choice imo. I would go with 2 36G raptors with 16mb cache wich are quite cheap or if you want more space, I recommend 1 36G raptor for your programs and games and one bigger 72000rpm drive for windows , the swap file and storage

    16mb is better than 8mb and also the 16mb version has ncq and native sata support. Sure it doesn't have sata2 but sata2 is useless as no drive can max out the 150mb/s sataI capacity. also the 8mb is noisier.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page