I feel the need, the need for speed!(HDD)

[TunaBoo]

<< &quot;...RAID 1 would function the same no matter SCSI or IDE...&quot;

&quot;...What you're saying is that SCSI RAID writes to both drives faster then a single SCSI card writes to one? That makes no sense. RAID 1 is just mirroring, there is no performance gain, how could there be?...&quot;

Actually Tunaboo is correct.

Raid-1 (Mirroring) actually CAN increase performance in comparison to a single drive...

&quot;...whenever data is written to a disk the same data is also written to a redundant disk, so that there are always two copies of the information. When data is read, it can be retrieved from the disk with the shorter queuing, seek and rotational delays...Mirroring is frequently used in database applications where availability and transaction time are more important than storage efficiency....&quot;

More about RAID in this thread.

An UGLY but EXCELLENT RAID Tutorial >>



Thanks dude, I knew a SCSI Guru was around to back me up

IDE raid 1 = Degrade
SCSI raid 1 = Equal (or slightly better)

 

[renorocks]

gsaldivar:
Hey, I'm the first to agree with you. We don't use the drives that are having the problems. Up untill recently, IBM has been one of the most reliable on the market. If you look at all of the major drive manufacturers, they have all put out a crappy line of drives at one time or another. I haven't yet lost faith in IBM, but if they don't fix this problem &amp; fast, we will be switching. Hopefully this will be a short cycle for them.

 

[DanJ]

<< Thanks dude, I knew a SCSI Guru was around to back me up

IDE raid 1 = Degrade
SCSI raid 1 = Equal (or slightly better) >>



He said &quot;Raid-1 (Mirroring) actually CAN increase performance in comparison to a single drive...&quot;

He didn't say SCSI was the only kind of RAID 1 that did this. So, no...IDE doesn't degrade with RAID 1, they both have the same benefit of reading the better location.

 

[gsaldivar]

&quot;...they both have the same benefit of reading the better location...&quot;

That's actually a function of the controller that you use, not IDE or SCSI.

 

[DanJ]

<< That's actually a function of the controller that you use, not IDE or SCSI. >>

Can I get an Amen?

 

[gsaldivar]

&quot;...if they don't fix this problem &amp; fast, we will be switching. Hopefully this will be a short cycle for them....&quot;

I hope so too - IBM makes decent drives, but they need to get their act together FAST. A few more weeks of this and it they'll be making headlines - in a bad way...

 

[TonyB]

<< I hope so too - IBM makes decent drives, but they need to get their act together FAST. A few more weeks of this and it they'll be making headlines - in a bad way... >>



They've already made headlines, look at the Inquirers article and the original one by Hexus

 

[millsy]

Do you think performance would be better with 1 40Gb hard drive (either 60GXP, Maxtor DimondMax Plus or WD400BB) than having 2 of the best of these in RAID 0 on the Epox 8K7A+?
What I read in storagereview.com is that RAID 0 will most definitely improve performance.
If I will be using the PC for games and the wonderful www, will the onboard highpoint controller (software RAID) be any good?

 

[DanJ]

millsy, for what you want I wouldn't RAID 0 it. Basically you're not going to get much of any performance game and you're going to have twice the possibility of failure with no means of replacement.

 

[gsaldivar]

&quot;...Do you think performance would be better with 1 40Gb hard drive (either 60GXP, Maxtor DimondMax Plus or WD400BB) than having 2 of the best of these in RAID 0 on the Epox 8K7A+?...&quot;

Well, um ... are 2 drives better than 1? yep!

Arranging 2 drives in RAID 0, or leaving them separate, is more of a personal decision.

Keep in mind that RAID 0 is basically doubling the risk of data loss, in an attempt to increase data performance.

If you keep good backups, and/or have important stuff on another computer, then this might be the way to go.

However, if this is your main/only computer - and contains personal info, emails, etc., and you aren't very good at keeping backups: you probably want to avoid RAID 0.


&quot;...will the onboard highpoint controller (software RAID) be any good...&quot;

From what I hear, the Highpoint controller isn't very robust. However, it's a good starter for someone getting into RAID. And it's certainly better than a completely software-based solution (&quot;soft-RAID&quot.

 

[TunaBoo]

<<

<< Thanks dude, I knew a SCSI Guru was around to back me up

IDE raid 1 = Degrade
SCSI raid 1 = Equal (or slightly better) >>



He said &quot;Raid-1 (Mirroring) actually CAN increase performance in comparison to a single drive...&quot;

He didn't say SCSI was the only kind of RAID 1 that did this. So, no...IDE doesn't degrade with RAID 1, they both have the same benefit of reading the better location. >>




ARGH


Look at benchmarks (even tho I think benchmarks are stupid).

IDE in raid 1 = worse than IDE single drive.

SCSI in raid 1 = same or better than SCSI single drive.

This is a FACT. IDE cannot intelligently handle multiple drives as SCSI can. Of course SCSI costs a lot more. But it needs to be clear to everyone that:

1) IDE raid increases seek times which is the main part of a HD the average user notices
2) Raid0 makes failure much more likely.

 

[millsy]

I just bought the 8K7A+ so I should have gone for the standard board really.
which hard drive would you choose out of:
IBM 60GXP 40gb
Maxtor DimondMax Plus45 46gb
WD Caviar WD400BB

 

[gsaldivar]

millsy: Maxtor.

If you are doing RAID - make sure to get a matched set of hard disks...

 

[Andrew111]

Generally speaking, what is the usual amount of added seek time when using IDE RAID-1 compared to just using a single HDD? Is it really worth the added cost going with two hard drives just to backup your data, when you will lose out a little on performance compared to a single HDD?

 

[TunaBoo]

<< Generally speaking, what is the usual amount of added seek time when using IDE RAID-1 compared to just using a single HDD? Is it really worth the added cost going with two hard drives just to backup your data, when you will lose out a little on performance compared to a single HDD? >>



All IDE raid will add to seek time. I cannot give you a specific #.

It all depends on how much your value your data. My primary drive (win/apps/games) is a single drive SCSI. Nothing very important there. My partition full of DIVXs is single drive IDE, as I have it all on CD>

However my mp3 drive (~30 gigs) is IDE raid1 (as soon as I get stupid win2k software raid to work). It sits on a server, so it will never give me more than 8 megs a second anyway. And if it gives me 500K a second, I am happy. What I care about is not losing the drive with my precious MP3s.

 

[thorin]

&quot; but I have also heard a lot about 60GXP hard drives kicking the buck&quot;

Where did you hear/read these stories?

Thorin

 

[Jeffwo]

Personally, I have two W.D. 400BBs in RAID 0 and I am very satisfied with them. I do a lot of photo applications and they are quiet and fast.

Thanks, Jeff