Raid vs single HDD - 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 03-09-2007, 10:43 AM   #1 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11
Default Raid vs single HDD

im building at 1800-2000 dollar gaming rig in the upcoming months and im thinking about using 2 7200 drives in raid 0 because ive read its fast.

i really dont understand how its fast and what it does if someone could explain the advanatages of it to me that would be much apritioated
__________________

kevsoup is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:45 AM   #2 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 694
Default

Raid 0 enables your computer to use two drives as one. Basicaly, it writes data on both drives. part of a file stored on both disks. It's reffered to as stripping.

The major problem with RAID 0 is if one drive fails you lose all data. If you're going to have some sort of data that would be disaterous to lose, use RAID 0+1.

About the speed thing. I have two 80gig, 7200 RPM drives in RAID 0 and there is an improvement in speed. It's not a huge, dramatic increase, but it is noticeable.

Try this link. it will give an in depth explanation of pros and cons to allaspects of RAID.

Enjoy!
__________________

__________________
Lian Li Aluminum Case
Intel D975XBXK2R Mobo
Core 2 Duo E6700 CPU
EVGA 8800 GTS Video Card
Corsair XMS 2 x 1gig RAM
Zalman 9500 CPU cooler
hercules_upw is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 02:57 AM   #3 (permalink)
Future ex-member
 
lancec2c30's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 4,012
Send a message via MSN to lancec2c30
Default

ya,it just shares the data between the two hdd's. you have to use two of the same model and preferably same make for it to work.
__________________

XP Pro | Vista Home Premium | Linux Ubuntu 7.10
s939 X2 3800 Toledo @ 2.6ghz | evga 7900gs | 320gig + 80gig wd | 1gb Ram | Abit KN8 SLI
3.1ghz achieved. :cool:
70K F@H member..............still waiting for the "iRACK"

Norcent will not be forgotten.

lancec2c30 is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 08:26 AM   #4 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
MrCoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,858
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

RAID 0 is risky I would recommend RAID 5 with 3 or more drives. RAID 5 with 4 drives is very very fast and you have your redundancy so its a simple matter of replacing a drive if it fails.. no data loss.
__________________
Intel core I7 920
GA-EX58-UD3R
6GB OCZ platinum 1600
XFX HD4890
Noctua nh-u12p
Corsair HX520
Antec 300
Samsung 1TB F1 Spinpoint
Samsung SM2443BW 24"
MrCoffee is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 09:12 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

i agree with MrCoffee. RAID 0+1 is a very costly configuration. RAID5 still gives redundancy but greater speed and more storage.
Nitestick is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 01:10 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
synergy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 15 Hive
Posts: 2,284
Send a message via MSN to synergy Send a message via Yahoo to synergy
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

Someone once explained it as two people doing the work that one would normally do...thus the job gets done faster. I have noticed a little bit of speed increase when loading games and booting into windows, but that is it and it isn't that much faster. As far as the riskiness of RAID 0, it doens't matter if you have your data store on yet another drive like I do. Also, I reformat regularly because of the beauty of the Windows OS...*rolls eyes* so losing OS data isn't really an issue. I guess it depends on your preferences.
__________________
i7 2600K | TRUE 120 w/ Xigmatek XLF-F1253 | Asus Sabertooth P67 | 16 GB G.Skill RipjawX DDR3 1600
EVGA GTX 560Ti | 256 GB Plextor M3 SSD |80 GB Intel X25-M SSD | Corsair Graphite 600T
Coolermaster Purepower 850W | Samsung 25.5" 1920x1200 | Windows 7 Pro 64-bit


HTPC: AMD FX-4100 3.6 GHz | Gigabyte GA-880GM mATX w/ ATI Radeon HD 4250 | 8 GB G.Skill RipjawX DDR3 1600
LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD ROM + DVD RW | 60 GB OCZ Vertex SSD | WD Caviar 1 TB | Antec Veris Fusion Black HTPC Case
Logitech diNovo Edge KB | Win7 Pro 64-bit
3dMark06 23,159 | 3dMark Vantage 23,579 | TF2 Stats Page | BC2 Stats | BF3 Stats
MCSE (SharePoint 2013), MCITP & MCTS (SharePoint 2010), CIW
synergy is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 07:57 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

Quote:
I have noticed a little bit of speed increase when loading games and booting into windows, but that is it and it isn't that much faster.
did you stop to think that in those instances performance might not be limited by HDD ? if it's a hardware array and you're using a high disk bandwidth application, trust me it's noticeable.
Nitestick is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 05:13 AM   #8 (permalink)
Patron
 
saltynay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: West Coast, Singapore
Posts: 5,149
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

the seagate Barracuda 7200.10 series is the best price/performance raid array you can buy they have tons of space and are quick as a single hdd but in a raid 1 they're nearly as fast as raptors which are 3 times the price
__________________
saltynay is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 12:14 PM   #9 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
synergy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 15 Hive
Posts: 2,284
Send a message via MSN to synergy Send a message via Yahoo to synergy
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestick View Post
did you stop to think that in those instances performance might not be limited by HDD ? if it's a hardware array and you're using a high disk bandwidth application, trust me it's noticeable.
Yea...maybe I am just used to the faster speed :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltynay View Post
the seagate Barracuda 7200.10 series is the best price/performance raid array you can buy they have tons of space and are quick as a single hdd but in a raid 1 they're nearly as fast as raptors which are 3 times the price
I read some benchmarks before I bought my drives and it's true that the Cudas are almost as fast as the older Raptors (36gb) but the newer Raptors have quite a bit more speed than the Cudas.
__________________
i7 2600K | TRUE 120 w/ Xigmatek XLF-F1253 | Asus Sabertooth P67 | 16 GB G.Skill RipjawX DDR3 1600
EVGA GTX 560Ti | 256 GB Plextor M3 SSD |80 GB Intel X25-M SSD | Corsair Graphite 600T
Coolermaster Purepower 850W | Samsung 25.5" 1920x1200 | Windows 7 Pro 64-bit


HTPC: AMD FX-4100 3.6 GHz | Gigabyte GA-880GM mATX w/ ATI Radeon HD 4250 | 8 GB G.Skill RipjawX DDR3 1600
LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD ROM + DVD RW | 60 GB OCZ Vertex SSD | WD Caviar 1 TB | Antec Veris Fusion Black HTPC Case
Logitech diNovo Edge KB | Win7 Pro 64-bit
3dMark06 23,159 | 3dMark Vantage 23,579 | TF2 Stats Page | BC2 Stats | BF3 Stats
MCSE (SharePoint 2013), MCITP & MCTS (SharePoint 2010), CIW
synergy is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 09:59 PM   #10 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
korky122's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 363
Send a message via AIM to korky122
Default Re: Raid vs single HDD

if you have 2 80 gig hd's in raid 0 will the total hd size be 80 or 160.
__________________

__________________
Core 2 Quad @ 2.5ghz (slacr)
3 gigs corsair xms2 ram
8800 gt 512 mb superclocked
Windows Vista
korky122 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 06:11 PM.


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