Raid 0 or two seperate hard disks for Vista?

bnk

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2007
24
0
0
Two options that I'm considering:
1. Two WD 500GB in raid 0 seperated into two partitions.

OR

2. Two hard disks, one for the OS and one for data.

Which one would you recommend for Vista ultimate?

 

LOUISSSSS

Diamond Member
Dec 5, 2005
8,771
58
91
2 seperate. raid 0 just doesn't yield any real world performance increase for the normal user
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Option 2. Without thinking too hard about it. A Terabyte sized RAID 0 is a disaster waiting to happen. Home machines really don't benefit much from RAID 0 in any case.
 

bnk

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2007
24
0
0
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?

I still think option 2, ie. not putting all your eggs in one basket and all that good stuff.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Option 4
Keep vista and all your programs on one 500gb disk, have the other one as backup for your important files and as secondary storage
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
Of course you don't! :p
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise
 

Roguestar

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
6,045
0
0
Wheee, another RAID-0 thread. Here goes:

Originally posted by: AnandTech HD Review
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast loading times
The results speak for themselves with the RAID 0 setups offering extremely minor performance improvements in actual game load testing. You will likely not be able to notice any differences during actual game play with a RAID 0 setup. We know it was impossible for us.

BF2 Daqing Oilfields loading times
Once again we see a minimal difference between our RAID 0 and single drive configurations in this benchmark with only a one second difference in load times. In repeated testing it was difficult to discern any differences between the RAID 0 and single drive setups.

Nero Recoding
If you do a lot of video encoding then RAID 0 could end up saving you some precious minutes each day. Is it worth the cost or effort? Probably not, but it is one area besides benchmarking where RAID 0 actually made a difference. Of course, if you don't already have the fastest CPU for encoding available, that would have a far greater impact than RAID 0.

File Copying
We finish our tests with a benchmark that should have favored the RAID 0 setups due to a pure write scenario. Unlike our iPeak test (and for that matter a similar test in PCMark05) where the largest differences in scores between setups were generated, we have RAID 0 making no difference in this test and actually scoring worse than a single drive setup in two instances.

Final Thoughts
If it is not obvious by now, RAID 0 will provide outstanding results in synthetic benchmarks but really does nothing in actual applications.
RAID 0 sounds impressive in a system configuration and provides a performance placebo effect when viewing synthetic benchmarks. However, RAID 0 is just not worth the trouble or cost for the average desktop user or gamer, especially with the software RAID capabilities included on most motherboards.
 

bnk

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2007
24
0
0
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
Of course you don't! :p
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise

40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
Of course you don't! :p
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise

40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
And your point is... ?

 

bnk

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2007
24
0
0
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
Of course you don't! :p
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise

40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
And your point is... ?

Oh, Sorry. That if I need a 40GB HD for Vista, it is like buying a 250GB 9or even 500GB, the price difference is minor).
What I meant is whether a seperate HD for vista will make a performance change?


 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
Of course you don't! :p
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise

40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
And your point is... ?

Oh, Sorry. That if I need a 40GB HD for Vista, it is like buying a 250GB 9or even 500GB, the price difference is minor).
What I meant is whether a seperate HD for vista will make a performance change?
No

 

bnk

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2007
24
0
0
Bought the WD 500GB sata 2 (AAKS) - not raid as suggested by you guys.
I'll probably add a WD 500GB eSata drive as well instead of another internal 500GB.

Thanks for the help, guys, you've been of much help!