Couple questions regarding RAID and HD

Discussion in 'Computer Software and Operating Systems' started by Satangel, Jan 21, 2008.

Jan 21, 2008
  1. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    What is faster, a Raptor HD or a RAID combo (please specify which RAID)

    And what is the exact difference between RAID 0 and RAID 1? Ive already done some research, but I still don't understand it completely...
     


  2. mojoex

    Member mojoex GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    RAID 0 is faster than any single hard drive.
    RAID 0 is built for speed whereas RAID 1 is more stable, and easier to backup if things go wrong.
     
  3. xcalibur

    Member xcalibur Gbatemp's Chocolate Bear

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Sacred Heart
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    RAID 0 combines 2 hard drives into one SUPER hard drive.
    The problem is if one fails, the other fails too.
    RAID 1 Is made for more secure data storage because it combines two hard drives into one which is half the storage size but all data on one HD is mirrored on the other.
     
  4. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    I think I will pick RAID 1 then.
    So if 1 HD crashes in RAID 1, I will still have my data?
    And how much faster is RAID 0 compared to RAID 1?
    And is a Raptor HD faster?

    Tnx for your time!
     
  5. Kiljaeden

    Member Kiljaeden GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Sydney
    Country:
    Australia
    The Raptor is faster than any single drive at present. It would not be as fast as Raid 0, but would be faster than Raid 1, unless you were using two Raptors in the Raid 1. [​IMG]

    Raid 0, means you have two hard drives, and the data is shared between the two, so essentially, you are writing in half the time. The downside to Raid 0 is, that if one hard drive fails, you have LOST ALL YOUR DATA. I can't stress that enough.

    Raid 1, means you have two hard drives, and the data is stored on both of the hard drives, so essentially, you are writing at the same speed as a normal hard drive, except you have a backup, in case the hard drive fails.
     
  6. BigX

    Member BigX GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    over there
    Country:
    Canada
    Kiljaedon propably meant RAID 0 means you are writing almost at double speed.
    There is a good set of information on wikipedia about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
     
  7. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    So with RAID 1 I don't have any speed profit?
    Whats the chance my HD crashes in RAID 0?
     
  8. mojoex

    Member mojoex GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    depends what quality hard drive you get. if you get 2xSamsung spinpoints then the chances that they'll die are very slim. if you get 2xmaxtor's the chances that they die are very high.

    A single Raptor is faster than any other single drive. 2 drives in RAID 0 are faster than any other combination, including a single drive.
    you do not get any speed benefits from RAID 1, but if one hard drive fails you still have the data stored on the other hard drive.
    if one goes in RAID 0, you lose everything.
     
  9. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    Thanks for all the info posted!

    I'm gonna go with a RAID 0 combo then, with 2 SAMSUNG SpinPoint 500GB (HD501LJ, 7200RPM, SATA-II, 16MB) hard disks.

    Tnx!
     
  10. mojoex

    Member mojoex GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    good choice [​IMG]
    hope it all works out for you!
     
  11. FAST6191

    Reporter FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,743
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It might take a bit of effort (some onboard RAID controllers are not that good for much beyond RAID 0 and 1) but why not pick a higher raid level like 5 or even a nested/multi level RAID which in my opinion provides the best compromise between speed and reliability.

    Edit: better link than wikipedia: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/index.htm
     
  12. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    Its for in a regular game-PC, and I don't have any interest in buying 3 or more HD's...
    Tnx for the tips though.

    I'm gonna buy this custom PC anytime now:

    ASUS EN8800GT TOP/HTDP/512M (PCI-E, 512MB DDR3, TV-Out, Dual DVI)

    SAMSUNG SH-S203 20x DVD+/-RW 8x DL 12x DVD-RAM S-ATA

    Corsair 4096MB DDR2 XMS6400, Heat spreader EPP (2x2048MB)

    ARCTIC Freezer 7 Pro (Intel 775)

    SAMSUNG SpinPoint 500GB (HD501LJ, 7200RPM, SATA-II, 16MB) x2
    These two will become RAID 0

    OCZ GameXStream 700W

    INTEL Core 2 Quad Q6600

    ASUS P5E s775,2xPCIe,ATX,X38,DDR2,GLAN

    Cooler Master Elite 330


    I already have a 20" CRT and keyboard,mouse and speakers.
     
  13. ZeWarrior

    Member ZeWarrior TheWarrior

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,810
    Country:
    Brazil

    Depends on the PSU. Get If it's decent, yes it's enough.
     
  14. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    Its from the brand Zalman, a great brand for PSU's and coolers.
    But for a mere 8 euros more I have 100 Watts.
    Its also a graet PSU, and has 700 Watts.
    So I think I will buy this one: OCZ GameXStream 700W
     
  15. BigX

    Member BigX GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    over there
    Country:
    Canada
    gee, I am old....
    I come from a time, considering a 300W PSU for PCs where more than ever needed... (not talking about C64 PSU) ^^
    Hell, isn't 300 W enough for this pc? Does that GPU suck that much power? two HDD are not that much and what about the other components?
    (My PC is still from studying time - AMD 2500+)
     
  16. FAST6191

    Reporter FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,743
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    @BigX GPUs are power hogs, pretty much everything else has been toned down of late but they still (apologies for the forum thread but it is a good start)
    http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=9354
    If you leave them out and go for more mainstream (lowend?) components you can still use low wattage PSUs. Even more so if you go for low power stuff.

    As for the quad CPU for games definitely go dual core but quad still seems like overkill. If it is futureproofing then maybe but for a machine to be upgraded/replaced in less than 2 years......
    Video encoding is a different matter but my dual core stuff still does DVDs and H264 with all the trimmings quite nicely.
     
  17. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    Its for the future, prolly a PC for the next 4-5 years [​IMG]

    Will my ARCTIC Freezer 7 Pro cool my overclocked Quad Core Q6600?
     
  18. mojoex

    Member mojoex GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    An arctic freezer 7 would definately cool it.
    but i suggest going for a Tuniq Tower 120.. it cools more efficiently and is quieter.

    also, for a PSU, go for a OCZ StealthXStream 600W.
    thats more than enough power for that system.

    can you go about 40 euros more? the new 8800GTS 512mb would be better for you with a 20" monitor.
     
  19. Satangel
    OP

    Member Satangel BEAST

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,255
    Location:
    Bruges, Belgium
    Country:
    Belgium
    Isn't the 8800GT the best GFX card atm, besides the GTX version?
    And 40 euros is not a big difference, I can go with that [​IMG]

    Is it a big difference between the GT and the GTS?
     
  20. Kiljaeden

    Member Kiljaeden GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Sydney
    Country:
    Australia
    Bang for buck, the 8800GT is better than the 8800GTS. If money isn't an option, the new 8800GTS (G92) is better than the 8800GT.

    If you are really wanting to buy for the next 4-5 years, which I believe is IMPOSSIBLE, wait a couple of months for the 9000 series. They should be released soon. At least that should hold you out for 1-2 years.
     

Share This Page