150gb raptor VS. 2x stripe raided 36gb/74gb raptors

[DanW85]

I've heard and seen stripe being quicker than normal setups.

Does anyone know if much performance increase is going to result if I do this?


Thanks,
Dan

 

[Bobthelost]

For most things the 150GB raptor will be faster.

For boot times, moving large (10 megabyte+) files and for a few other things the RAID0 74 will be faster. The RAID0 36 would be a bit ****** all round in comparison.

What do you want to speed up? Fps won't change with any of these, boot times a bit, BF2 loading times may drop a second or so (which is a good thing) but some tests show RAID0 doing nothing for loading times, some show a second shaved off.

 

[DanW85]

ah I know my FPS wont change at all, I wasn't expecting it to. I just wondered whether boot times and load times would benefit from it. I think I've just ruled out the 36gb Raptor because it's the same price (or there abouts) as the 74gb.

Now I'm wondering which is goingto be quieter as well. 2 x 74gb raptors or the 150gb disc, as apparently the 150 is quite a bit louder.

 

[Bobthelost]

Really? SPCR didn't think it was much louder. Add in the doubling the sources (add in 3dBa) rule and you're probably at the same point

Let's face it, either way you'll be happy. But personally I'd go for the single drive, less power drawn, simpler, more reliable, faster in most roles.

 

[MplsBob]

Surprising, but true, a single Raptor beats out a RAID of Raptors. If you have money to burn go for the $320 Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive-OEM. It beats the daylights out of all other IDE hard drives. It also has a crystal-clear lens on the drive to let you see into the inner workings and witness the drive in action, which adds nothing at all to its performance.

Next down the list is the Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFDRTL 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive- Retail. It costs $290 and is the same as the above, but without the window.

Third on the list is the Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM. It normally costs $249 (NewEgg has a $50 rebate bringing that down to $199) and has the performance of the above, but comes with no extras. You just get the drive.

Fourth on the list is the Western Digital Raptor WD740ADFD 74GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM. It normally costs about $170. It offers performance that is a clear step down from the 150GB unit, but still whumps any non-Raptor drive around. I had one of these "lying around". I popped it into my tower as c: drive and watched my backup times get cut in half.

Given the prices above, the $199 price for the 150GB drive certainly is attractive.

Note- The prices above are from NewEgg and no, I do not shill for NewEgg. I find it just plain easier to navigate their site and find stuff in a hurry. I certainly am not a fan of their price gouging on Conroe related items, such as the DFI 975 motherboard.

 

[lamere]

Originally posted by: MplsBob

Surprising, but true, a single Raptor beats out a RAID of Raptors. If you have money to burn go for the $320 Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive-OEM. It beats the daylights out of all other IDE hard drives. It also has a crystal-clear lens on the drive to let you see into the inner workings and witness the drive in action, which adds nothing at all to its performance.

Next down the list is the Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFDRTL 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive- Retail. It costs $290 and is the same as the above, but without the window.

Third on the list is the Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM. It normally costs $249 (NewEgg has a $50 rebate bringing that down to $199) and has the performance of the above, but comes with no extras. You just get the drive.

Fourth on the list is the Western Digital Raptor WD740ADFD 74GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM. It normally costs about $170. It offers performance that is a clear step down from the 150GB unit, but still whumps any non-Raptor drive around. I had one of these "lying around". I popped it into my tower as c: drive and watched my backup times get cut in half.

Nice post, thanks for the info...I was thinking on getting some raptors myself but I always heard that raptors in a RAID 0 pretty much smokes anything out there except those expensive toshiba SCSI drives. So what you're saying is that a single 150GB raptor wil outperform 2 74GB raptors in a RAID 0?
Any links? If that's the case, I know which way i'm going.......

BTW, what's the difference between the second and third choices? Plain drive vs. boxed drive?

 

[drewintheav]

Actually, I think that the Raptor 360ADFD 36 GB, and 740ADFD 74 GB are a little faster than the 150 GB Raptor. So... in raid 0 mode they should also be faster at least with large files...

 

[GrammatonJP]

If you want quick boot time, get a pair of 4gb iram in raid 0.. it'll smoke a raptor in speed but not in space

 

[DanW85]

MplsBob: yeah sorry I do know how good the raptors are on performance, my brother has a 74gb raptor. I was just wondering if I could increase on the already good performance without much of an increase noise...

 

[DanW85]

Originally posted by: drewintheav
Actually, I think that the Raptor 360ADFD 36 GB, and 740ADFD 74 GB are a little faster than the 150 GB Raptor. So... in raid 0 mode they should also be faster at least with large files...

not from what I've read on Storage Reviw. Apparently it's due to the increased density (which makes sense, the disc has to spin less to go further through the data)

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: drewintheav
Actually, I think that the Raptor 360ADFD 36 GB, and 740ADFD 74 GB are a little faster than the 150 GB Raptor. So... in raid 0 mode they should also be faster at least with large files...

Faster seeks but lower overall performance if memory serves.

 

[lamere]

I just found this article, on the WD Raptor WD1500ADFD tell me what you guys think......
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

 

[MplsBob]

Up above, lamere asked for some links to back up what I said above. Actually both StorageReview.com and AnandTech have in the past written articles about the fact that RAID performance is not what it is cracked up to be and that it really offers no particular advantage, particularly in view of the cost involved and the increased failure rate(you just doubled it by adding a second disk). In a quick look I have been unable to locate either the original of these two articles.

I did find an article on AnandTech that concludes:
"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

If you want to read the whole article:
Western Digital's Raptors in RAID-0: Are two drives better than one?
(I will caution you that reading about RAID is generally a pain because of the subtleties and the complexities involved.)

Since this one issue is repeated at least once per day it would be nice if AnandTech made it the permanent first article in the forum. For a while they did something like that on issues that were repeated endlessly. The problem they had was the huge number of twits who couldn't bother to read and still asked the same questions.

 

[lamere]

Originally posted by: MplsBob
Up above, lamere asked for some links to back up what I said above. Actually both StorageReview.com and AnandTech have in the past written articles about the fact that RAID performance is not what it is cracked up to be and that it really offers no particular advantage, particularly in view of the cost involved and the increased failure rate(you just doubled it by adding a second disk). In a quick look I have been unable to locate either the original of these two articles.

I did find an article on AnandTech that concludes:
"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

If you want to read the whole article:
Western Digital's Raptors in RAID-0: Are two drives better than one?
(I will caution you that reading about RAID is generally a pain because of the subtleties and the complexities involved.)

Since this one issue is repeated at least once per day it would be nice if AnandTech made it the permanent first article in the forum. For a while they did something like that on issues that were repeated endlessly. The problem they had was the huge number of twits who couldn't bother to read and still asked the same questions.

Cool, thanks for the link. I'll definetly keep this in mind the next time I wipe my drives

 

[drewintheav]

I stand by my first statement. The Raptor 360ADFD 36 GB, and 740ADFD 74 GB both have 16mb cache and are both newer than the Raptor 150GB.

 

[Rubycon]

Why would anyone want a window on a hard drive that sits in a case? To each is own I guess. Good drive though, I have a couple (without the window hehe) and they are quiet and damn fast.

 

[drewintheav]

I hear ya! lol

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: DanW85

Originally posted by: drewintheav
Actually, I think that the Raptor 360ADFD 36 GB, and 740ADFD 74 GB are a little faster than the 150 GB Raptor. So... in raid 0 mode they should also be faster at least with large files...

not from what I've read on Storage Reviw. Apparently it's due to the increased density (which makes sense, the disc has to spin less to go further through the data)

Uhhh Storage Review hasn't even reviewed crap for months. We're talking about the new ADFD raptors, meaning the NEW 74GB based on the 150GB and the NEW 36GB based on the 150GB. The 74GB didn't even come out till late late May/June.

I have a 74GB and trust me, it is faster than the 150. I've done benches. I've seen other benches too, and it MARGINALLY beats the 150. I don't know about the 36 though.

So the OP's question is up in the air. I assume OP means the old 74GBs raided together.. I believe the RAIDed 74GB raptors should be faster in transfer tests and what not.