Invest in RAID 0+1 PATA or RAID 0+1 SATA considering...

[Imaginer]

My current system is no means anything powerful now.

Mobile Athlon XP 2600+
Epox 8K5A3+ (VIA KT333)
768 MB DDR400(ish) memory
ATI Radeon AIW (and yes this is using the first gen Radeon chipset)
A Pioneer 4x DVD-R burner
Plextor 40x12x40 CD burner
Game Theater XP (maybe 4.1)

AND

2 80GB Maxtors (Diamondmax Plus 9 L080J4) that failed within a week of each other (2mb cache)
1 80GB 8mb Maxtor Diamondmax (Y080P0) still going
1 120GB 2mb Maxtor (Y120L0) still going
1 30GB WD307AA Western Digital still going as the OS drive

...and ill stop there with the pitiful system specs...

None have been raided at all and I have ZERO experience with raid. Would like RAID now for its backup but havent had enough cash at one point of time to purchase 4 drives or so at a time as I believe its better to have drives of the same model and possibly batch?

Anyways, I dont game much anymore, been into aviation as of late. Just need a machine for some light gaming if needed, mainly continued DVD burning, some light artwork with Painter, and watching avis.

Is a performance of an addin SATA card diminishing as it seems to this system if I go SATA? Or use the already onboard RAID features and get 4 PATAs (though again question is how long will PATAs be in the market?)

Right now, Backing up to DVD-R and Windows shows all drives to be there. But the clicking! --- Dont know when the drives start going to die....🙁

 

[6000SUX]

Your question is poorly asked. Why in the world would you be considering getting four more PATA drives? And why would a RAID newbie, with minimal system requirements, want to use RAID 10 or RAID 0+1-- just to do it? You don't need fault tolerance, but you want to throw away half your drive space?

Do you overclock your system?

 

[Doctorweir]

Anyway...you could buy PATA=>SATA converters later.
I use one and there is 0 performance difference...

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Your question is poorly asked. Why in the world would you be considering getting four more PATA drives?

Do you overclock your system?

and why not when it costs less, has similar performance. the only real difference si that sata has thinner cables. as fro 5 years, im not sure SATA will be really common in 5 years either. computers change. get with it. the agp to pci-e cycle was what each around 6 years long from infancy to replacement? im sure some new tech will be out in 5 years. futureproofing for so far ahead is worthless.

 

[Imaginer]

6000SUX FSB is at 133 but multiplier is changed.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Your question is poorly asked. Why in the world would you be considering getting four more PATA drives?

Do you overclock your system?

and why not when it costs less, has similar performance. the only real difference si that sata has thinner cables. as fro 5 years, im not sure SATA will be really common in 5 years either. computers change. get with it. the agp to pci-e cycle was what each around 6 years long from infancy to replacement? im sure some new tech will be out in 5 years. futureproofing for so far ahead is worthless.

I am "with it", and your advice is worthless. Give this guy the advice to buy four more PATA drives (ignoring the fact that he shouldn't be getting four to start with) and you'll have hamstrung him the first time he wants to buy a cheap motherboard with good SATA support.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Imaginer
6000SUX FSB is at 133 but multiplier is changed.

Overclocking with an unlocked FSB is why two DiamondMax 9 drives failed almost instantaneously on your system.

 

[Imaginer]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Imaginer
6000SUX FSB is at 133 but multiplier is changed.

Overclocking with an unlocked FSB is why two DiamondMax 9 drives failed almost instantaneously on your system.

In case you hadn't noticed, the VT333 chipset supports 133FSB.

The drives arent exactly new either and has some age to them, I am wondering my options at this point.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Imaginer

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Imaginer
6000SUX FSB is at 133 but multiplier is changed.

Overclocking with an unlocked FSB is why two DiamondMax 9 drives failed almost instantaneously on your system.

In case you hadn't noticed, the VT333 chipset supports 133FSB.

The drives arent exactly new either and has some age to them, I am wondering my options at this point.

I assumed that, even though I don't know the chipset, but when your drives failed you had your system set up to fail; maybe you hadn't locked the FSB speed. It doesn't matter what it's set at now. The chance of two DiamondMax 9 drives failing within a week of each other is so miniscule, you'd have better chances of winning the lottery.

 

[Imaginer]

I will probably get 4 PATA drives, perhaps looking through the HD forum to see any good deals around.

Later down the road if I do need a more powerful system, I will probably use the PATA-SATA adapters.

 

[ionoxx]

If you want fault tolerance, why not just get 2 larger drives. from the looks of it, you currely have 300Gb out of all those drives. Why not just get 2 SATA 300GB drives and put them in raid 1?

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Your question is poorly asked. Why in the world would you be considering getting four more PATA drives?

Do you overclock your system?

and why not when it costs less, has similar performance. the only real difference si that sata has thinner cables. as fro 5 years, im not sure SATA will be really common in 5 years either. computers change. get with it. the agp to pci-e cycle was what each around 6 years long from infancy to replacement? im sure some new tech will be out in 5 years. futureproofing for so far ahead is worthless.

I am "with it", and your advice is worthless. Give this guy the advice to buy four more PATA drives (ignoring the fact that he shouldn't be getting four to start with) and you'll have hamstrung him the first time he wants to buy a cheap motherboard with good SATA support.

lol. there is no difference between pata and sata performance wise. and as stated multiple times now, adapters are cheap and readily available. no point getting sata imaginer unless the prices are very close.