To RAID or not to RAID... - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-12-2006, 11:44 PM   #11 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
BennyV04988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835
Default

i see...so in THIS case, a single 320GB for $155 vs 2x $87 160GBs would actually be a smarted idea?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136003

This seems to defy RAID. hehehe.
__________________

__________________
3DMARK VANTAGE: 11,500
GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
MOBO: MSI P6N SLI-FI 650i
RAM: G.SKILL 3x1GB DDR2 800
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:51 PM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: in the past
Posts: 1,144
Send a message via AIM to thebleakness
Default

I have 2 120gb Seagate cudas in RAID0 and i love it. Especially when playing bf2 and you load the game 10 seconds before anyone else. hehehehe. I was accused of having speed hacks because i had captured 1 control point before anyone was even in the game with me. anyway......i would get two drives and then RAID them and then get one drive for a backup. The only places you will notice a differece are when your loading something or writing.

What HAVOC also said is also a good thing too but if you have alot of very important data that you CANT lose dont go with RAID0, then go with RAID1 or RAID5.
__________________

thebleakness is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 07:05 AM   #13 (permalink)
True Techie
 
kahlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 189
Default

Hey those ones on newegg you posted in are the exact ones i have. 2 in RAID 0. Been running for 3 months now and i have had no problem and awsom load times.
__________________
www.xenocide.shockv2.com
Join the metal/rock revolution.
kahlos is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:13 AM   #14 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 823
Default

hey, do the drives need to be the same, size speed, make ect to do a raid?
why is it risky?
harry18 is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 09:25 AM   #15 (permalink)
True Techie
 
kahlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 189
Default

The drives have to be roughly the same size so were talking 250 and 240 or summin like that and i'm not really sure but i think they have to be the same speed. You think about it two drives being written too if one was slower the faster one would be bottlenecked. To be safe i would go with 2 drives with exactly the same specs so that you don't bottleneck them. Its only risky because if one drive fails then you lose all the data as the data is stripped across both drives. But as some guy said earlyer 1 out of 100000 people have a drive failure. I wouldn't worry really cause if you went with 1 drive if that fails you lose the lot as well so its no different from having a single drive just that you get extra speed and space
__________________
www.xenocide.shockv2.com
Join the metal/rock revolution.
kahlos is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 10:21 AM   #16 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 823
Default

ok, well heres the situation, i got a 120gb 7k hdd with everything on, i want to wipe that and install a 74gb 10k hdd (which is comming tomorrow) on the 10k hdd i want OS, games and programmes, on the 7k hdd i want just files and music, how exactly do i set this up?

i figure put the xp disk in and format the 7k hdd, thus wiping it, the put the 10k in as master, and 7k as slave, put xp in and install on the 7k, and that should be it, or do i need to install the 7k hdd?

would that work right?
harry18 is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 10:31 AM   #17 (permalink)
True Techie
 
kahlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 189
Default

Yeah just format the old 7k and then put the 10k in master and 7k in slave then install windows on the 10k. Easy
__________________
www.xenocide.shockv2.com
Join the metal/rock revolution.
kahlos is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 10:36 AM   #18 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 823
Default

ok thanks.
harry18 is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:20 PM   #19 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
BennyV04988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835
Default

So it comes down to this in all reality...

2xSeagate Barracuda SATA 3GB/s 8MB Cache
For a total of $174.00

or...

1xWestern Digital Caviar 320GB SATA 3Gb/s 16MB Cache
For $155.00

So in RAID 0 the two drives would load faster, but what about the 16MB Cache of the larger single drive, as opposed to the two with only 8MB each? Now that should stir some debate...
__________________
3DMARK VANTAGE: 11,500
GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
MOBO: MSI P6N SLI-FI 650i
RAM: G.SKILL 3x1GB DDR2 800
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:48 PM   #20 (permalink)
True Techie
 
kahlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 189
Default

Well the extra cache does make a difference but the 2 in RAID 0 would certainly be better than the single drive. No debate Or you could go one better and get 2 16mb cache drives .
__________________

__________________
www.xenocide.shockv2.com
Join the metal/rock revolution.
kahlos is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.