2 drives or 1 drive?

[Andre]

Hi,

I asked myself the same question some months ago.

I choose to use only one drive (a Maxtor 200 Gb SATA).
It works fine and avoid overheat problem of 2 drives too close one to the
other.

I don' regret it til now.

Regards.

Andre

 

[me!!]

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

Thanks

Paul

 

[Doug Ramage]

Everything I have read says that you'll see better speed from 2 80's running
in raid 0..
That's how I am planning on doing my next build so maybee you can tell me
how it works out

Although dependent on what the machine is going to be used for, there have
been some recent discussions about the usefulness of RAID0 for a
workstation.

I have 2 Raptors in a RAID0 array, and it is much faster than my previous
7200 rpm SATA drives. But I have not tried the Raptors without RAID.

 

[rstlne]

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

Thanks

Paul

Everything I have read says that you'll see better speed from 2 80's running
in raid 0..
That's how I am planning on doing my next build so maybee you can tell me
how it works out

 

[Rob Stow]

If running in raid 0, do the drives show up as a single partition or
do you still get 2 drive letters?

Neither.

The RAID array (regardless of whether it is
RAID 0,1,0+1,1+0,3,5,or JBOD) will show up as
a single physical device and you can partition
that device within the limits of your OS.

 

[tHE_dOC]

well the speed is all depended on how good the controller and drives are,
personally i have a 2x160 raid 0 array, using maxtor 8mb cache, running on
the promise raid controller on the PC-DL Deluxe board and i only manage to
get about 40mb/s of sustained data rate. On my last mobo with a highpoint
raid controller this was closer to 60mb/s using the same disks.

I would do some research first on the controllers.

 

[me!!]

I have 2 Raptors in a RAID0 array, and it is much faster than my previous
7200 rpm SATA drives. But I have not tried the Raptors without RAID.

I would like a pair of raptors but my budget would limit me to 2 of
the 36.7gb drives.

For the same price i could get 2 120gb 7200rpm sata rives.

If running in raid 0, do the drives show up as a single partition or
do you still get 2 drive letters?

thanks

paul

 

[Ben Pope]

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

Depends what you're doing, but in most cases... not really.

I have a Raptor for my OS and a WD2500 for my media, games, whatever. That
way I get fast and large. But in all honesty sustained transfer rates are
the same. It's only seeking where the Raptor leaves 7200RPM drives in it's
wake.

I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to replace both of your drives
though?

Ben

 

[Doug Ramage]

I would like a pair of raptors but my budget would limit me to 2 of
the 36.7gb drives.

For the same price i could get 2 120gb 7200rpm sata rives.

If running in raid 0, do the drives show up as a single partition or
do you still get 2 drive letters?

thanks

paul

They are seen as one large drive.

 

[Ben Pope]

Both my current drives are fairly small ( 40 + 60gb ) si i thoughti
would replace them as they are nearing full.

They'll still be useful.

I always keep my data. games etc on a different drive to my os. If i
get just one 160gb sata drive can i still keep the 60gb ide drive
hooked up for backup on the ide controller?

Of course. You COULD leave them both there! (although you might not
require the storage)

Also will i need to press F6 during xp setup to tell it about the sata
controller and drive.

If you're planning on reinstalling, yes.

Ben

 

[me!!]

I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to replace both of your drives
though?

Both my current drives are fairly small ( 40 + 60gb ) si i thoughti
would replace them as they are nearing full.

I always keep my data. games etc on a different drive to my os. If i
get just one 160gb sata drive can i still keep the 60gb ide drive
hooked up for backup on the ide controller?

Also will i need to press F6 during xp setup to tell it about the sata
controller and drive.

My mobo is a a7n8x-e deluxe.

thanks


paul

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

With an optimal choice of HDs then RAID 0 wiil be faster for some things.

Getting the best/fastest model HD is essential regardless of the RAID 0 vs
JBOD choice.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

well the speed is all depended on how good the controller and drives are,
personally i have a 2x160 raid 0 array, using maxtor 8mb cache, running on
the promise raid controller on the PC-DL Deluxe board and i only manage to
get about 40mb/s of sustained data rate. On my last mobo with a highpoint
raid controller this was closer to 60mb/s using the same disks.

The problem is more likely the method used to measure the 40/60 and/or how
the array and stripe size were set. Promise is fast.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

I would like a pair of raptors but my budget would limit me to 2 of
the 36.7gb drives.

For the same price i could get 2 120gb 7200rpm sata rives.

Two slow drives in RAID 0 may NOT be as fast as a single 80gb Raptor.

If running in raid 0, do the drives show up as a single partition or
do you still get 2 drive letters?

It just looks like a single drive when using RAID 0.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Both my current drives are fairly small ( 40 + 60gb ) si i thoughti
would replace them as they are nearing full.

I always keep my data. games etc on a different drive to my os. If i
get just one 160gb sata drive can i still keep the 60gb ide drive
hooked up for backup on the ide controller?

You can have a number of drive. Your mobo should support at leats 4
ATA/EIDE devices. An ATA addon card is less than $50 and allows 4 more.

 

[Milleron]

Everything I have read says that you'll see better speed from 2 80's running
in raid 0..
That's how I am planning on doing my next build so maybee you can tell me
how it works out

This is not a flame, just an opposite opinion, but everything I've
read says that you're better off abandoning RAID 0, placing your OS on
the fastest drive you can afford, and installing a second drive as
large as you can afford for backups, data, storage, etc.
Ron

 

[Jay T. Blocksom]

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

[snip]

This depends completely on just how you define "better off". No, that is not
a facetious answer. Even ignoring the cost issue, reliability !=
performance... and in this context, they tend to be mutually exclusive.
(Now,if you were to go with *four* drives in a RAID 0+1 setup, you could
sort'a "have your cake and eat it too" -- but the cost would obviously be MUCH
higher)

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

[snip]

Ahhh... Now this is a much simpler (hence, easier to answer) question.

IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the expense of
slightly reduced *write* performance -- and most importantly, significantly
reduced overall system reliability. Any given HDD has a certain chance of
failing. RAID-0 makes the system completely dependant on *both* drives
operating correctly; so, all other things remaining equal, the overall chance
of a catastrophic *system* failure is approximately doubled.

IOW, it's a trade-off. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

 

[george]

Im going to replace my IDE hdds with serial ata drives. My motherboard
supports serial ATA RAID so am i better off getting one big 160Gb
drive ( cheaper option ) or getting 2 seperate 80Gb drives and running
them in raid 0?

[snip]

This depends completely on just how you define "better off". No, that is not
a facetious answer. Even ignoring the cost issue, reliability !=
performance... and in this context, they tend to be mutually exclusive.
(Now,if you were to go with *four* drives in a RAID 0+1 setup, you could
sort'a "have your cake and eat it too" -- but the cost would obviously be MUCH

higher)

Will it be any quicker with the raid 0 setup?

[snip]

Ahhh... Now this is a much simpler (hence, easier to answer) question.

IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the expense of
slightly reduced *write* performance --

NO, there's no reduction in write performance. The write performance of a
RAID 0 array is significantly better than a single drive just like reads.

 

[Asimov's Dog!]

[snip]

[snip]

IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the expense of
slightly reduced *write* performance -- and most importantly, significantly
reduced overall system reliability. Any given HDD has a certain chance of
failing. RAID-0 makes the system completely dependant on *both* drives
operating correctly; so, all other things remaining equal, the overall chance
of a catastrophic *system* failure is approximately doubled.

Incorrect, Do the math. In a Raid 0 setup, system catastrophy is "HALVED".
All things being equal, one drive fails "which one is anyone's guess" you
still have the option of rebuilding the array. The chance of two drives
failing at exactly the same time is a possibility which is why you have a
second back-up option. (People do, do this, don't they?) I sure as hell do!

IOW, it's a trade-off. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

 

[Roger Hamlett]

[snip]
[snip]

IN THEORY, a RAID-0 setup can offer significantly increased *read*
performance, at least some of the time. But it does this at the

expense

of
slightly reduced *write* performance -- and most importantly, significantly
reduced overall system reliability. Any given HDD has a certain chance of
failing. RAID-0 makes the system completely dependant on *both* drives
operating correctly; so, all other things remaining equal, the overall chance
of a catastrophic *system* failure is approximately doubled.

Incorrect, Do the math. In a Raid 0 setup, system catastrophy is "HALVED".
All things being equal, one drive fails "which one is anyone's guess" you
still have the option of rebuilding the array. The chance of two drives
failing at exactly the same time is a possibility which is why you have a
second back-up option. (People do, do this, don't they?) I sure as hell

do!
You are confusing RAID0 (striping), with RAID1 (mirroring). With RAID0. if
you lose either drive, you lose _all_ the data. You have no possibility to
rebild the array, since there is no redundancy. This is why people wanting
the performance of RAID0, with redundancy, opt for RAID0+1.

Best Wishes