Re: [H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2
That one's a tougher call. The 1st gen Raptors (WD360GD) aren't near the performers of the 2nd and 3rd gens--they're also louder and run hotter. Two of them in a RAID0 (the striping really isn't going to help much--it doesn't aid single-user performance much except on very specific access patterns) could be bested by a latest-generation 7.2k SATA drive--though I imagine it'd be close. You'd probably be best served by splitting the two 360GD's into one for OS and one for pagefile. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Maki Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:29 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2 Thanks Wayne, Tharin and Greg for your replies and insights. So the consensus is that 2 1st generation Raptors in RAID0 would be the better choice for a boot/OS drive than a new SATA 2 drive? Would love one (or even better, two) of the new 150 GB Raptor drives, but they are too $ at the moment for my budget. Thanks, Jim Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wayne Johnson I have 10k 72g Raptors in a Raid 0 array it's faster than anything else that I have [sata 1 or 2]
Re: [H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2
James, Thank you for the explanation. I think the lightbulb flickered on when I saw Greg use the term 'striped mirror.' Yes, I've been using 10K rpm scsi cheetahs for years, and, do agree that spindle speed generally is the biggest improvement. I have never tried to RAID them, but my server does use 3 10K rpm scsi drives in a RAID-5 array that seems pretty quick. I get it now; decisions, decisions... :) Best, Duncan At 08:48 02/14/2008 -0800, you wrote: Duncan, In 2003, I built a new system with an at the time powerhouse AMD XP3200+. The Raptors had just been introduced and everything I was reading was that a RAID0 (striped array) of 2 Raptors gave the best performance. Since the total drive space is only about 72 GB, and the OS is accessed continuously, the theory was that a boot drive/OS usage would bring speed rewards. Since then, I have read conflicting reports for single user desktop usage. Since I have a limited number of SATA ports and 5 320 GB Seagate drives and a new 750 GB Western Digital, SATA ports are at a premium. Eliminating the Raptor boot array frees up 2 SATA II ports and a potential 2TB of storage. So the short answer is that the RAID0 is supposed to give better performance (faster) than a single drive. Plus, the Raptors are 10,000 rpm drives vs. 7200 for all other SATA drives at this time. So 10,000 rpm plus RAID0 is supposed to give the ultimate in performance in a non-SCSI environment. I am just trying to decide if the (extra?) performance is worth the low storage capacity. Jim Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: DHSinclair James, You are way ahead of me. Is there some real world reason you use a RAID pair for a boot drive? Excuse me. I have missed something. Is a RAID pair faster than a single device (raptor?) boot drive? Best, Duncan
Re: [H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2
As always there are little niggling differences that can be a pro or con for either. But spindle speed is definitely the biggest deciding factor. SATA2 can achieve higher burst speeds due to the higher bandwidth of the interface + caching. There is an edge in performance when transferring small blocks of data. Overall a 10k or 15k rpm drive should definitely out win out over a 7200rpm drive regardless of the interface. The main idea is that sustained transfers from all conventional hard disks aren't capable of even saturating the slower interfaces much less the faster ones. -Tharin O. --- James Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Is there a difinitive answer to the question of performance between a RAID0 array of 10,000 rpm 36 GB Raptors vs single 7200 rpm SATA 2 drive for the OS? I am looking at a re-install of Windows XP Pro in the future and am looking at my options. Both would be on SATA 2 mobo ports. Thanks, Jim Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2
Thanks Wayne, Tharin and Greg for your replies and insights. So the consensus is that 2 1st generation Raptors in RAID0 would be the better choice for a boot/OS drive than a new SATA 2 drive? Would love one (or even better, two) of the new 150 GB Raptor drives, but they are too $ at the moment for my budget. Thanks, Jim Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wayne Johnson I have 10k 72g Raptors in a Raid 0 array it's faster than anything else that I have [sata 1 or 2]
Re: [H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2
James, You are way ahead of me. Is there some real world reason you use a RAID pair for a boot drive? Excuse me. I have missed something. Is a RAID pair faster than a single device (raptor?) boot drive? Best, Duncan At 22:28 02/13/2008 -0800, you wrote: Thanks Wayne, Tharin and Greg for your replies and insights. So the consensus is that 2 1st generation Raptors in RAID0 would be the better choice for a boot/OS drive than a new SATA 2 drive? Would love one (or even better, two) of the new 150 GB Raptor drives, but they are too $ at the moment for my budget. Thanks, Jim Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wayne Johnson I have 10k 72g Raptors in a Raid 0 array it's faster than anything else that I have [sata 1 or 2]
[H] RAID0 SATA vs. single disk SATA 2
Hi all, Is there a difinitive answer to the question of performance between a RAID0 array of 10,000 rpm 36 GB Raptors vs single 7200 rpm SATA 2 drive for the OS? I am looking at a re-install of Windows XP Pro in the future and am looking at my options. Both would be on SATA 2 mobo ports. Thanks, Jim Maki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
