• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RAPTOR VS u160 vs u320

Y

Yoshi911

Senior member
sup all
Instead of getting a Raptor I'm thinking of getting 4 15k u160 or u320 18gig Cheetah SCSI's what do you think? It'd be on a DFI SLI-D so I only have a PCI bus to work with (unless someone wants to sell me a pci-e controller for $50) lol.
SO,
4x18gb 15k u320= $140 with controller
4x18gb 15k u160= $90 with controller
1x250gb SATA II 16meg=$100

Eventually I'd get SATA drives but to start off with (dont need TONS of space atm)
 
Just do what I did. 2x160GB WD SATA II drives in raid-0. They are a good bit faster than my raid-0 raptors were. 101.4mb/s sustained, 265.4mb/s burst.

My 36gb raptors in raid-0 were 76.8mb/s sustained, 189mb/s burst.
 
4x18G Cheetahs would be slower than a single Raptor 150. Just look at StorageReview's benchmarks. Actually, even 4 modern Cheetahs would be slower in most cases. Getting 18G drives is ridiculous because they're so old.

Of course you didn't provide the exact models, but the Ultra-160 Cheetahs might be the original X15 drives, and the Ultra-320 ones are probably 15K.3's. There's probably a reason you're getting these drives cheap.

If you want the best performance, you should just get a single Raptor 150. Obviously these setups are a little chepaer than a Raptor 150, but I guarantee even a single Raptor 74 would be better.

But apparently everybody in this thread seems to think RAID 0 is a good idea ... It's just unbelievable that people can be so clueless.
 
Originally posted by: Tostada
4x18G Cheetahs would be slower than a single Raptor 150. Just look at StorageReview's benchmarks. Actually, 4 modern Cheetahs would be slower in most cases. Getting 18G drives is ridiculous because they're so old.

If you want the best performance, you should just get a single Raptor 150.

But apparently everybody in this thread seems to think RAID 0 is a good idea ... It's just unbelievable that people can be so clueless.
Click to expand...

Raid-0 isn't completely useless you know, no it's not useful for the standard desktop user, but you have no idea what he is using his system for, so you don't know that it won't benifit him now do you?

I do agree that the 4 old 18gb cheetahs in raid-0 is going to be slower than a 150gb raptor, but for a lot less, 2x160gb SATA 3G drives will outperform the single 150gb raptor in most cases.
 
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Originally posted by: Tostada
4x18G Cheetahs would be slower than a single Raptor 150. Just look at StorageReview's benchmarks. Actually, 4 modern Cheetahs would be slower in most cases. Getting 18G drives is ridiculous because they're so old.

If you want the best performance, you should just get a single Raptor 150.

But apparently everybody in this thread seems to think RAID 0 is a good idea ... It's just unbelievable that people can be so clueless.
Click to expand...

Raid-0 isn't completely useless you know, no it's not useful for the standard desktop user, but you have no idea what he is using his system for, so you don't know that it won't benifit him now do you?

I do agree that the 4 old 18gb cheetahs in raid-0 is going to be slower than a 150gb raptor, but for a lot less, 2x160gb SATA 3G drives will outperform the single 150gb raptor in most cases.
Click to expand...

Not for gaming it won't. There is a distinct lack of reviews showing a gaming improvement for RAID0. If you know of one then please share the mental weath, i've been looking for one for months to no avail.

To the OP: The raptor would be fastest for most things. Unless you're going for photoshop then i wouldn't bother, if you are going for photoshop then break it down to two different RAID0 arrays, one to read from, one to write too. Much faster than one 4xRAID0 array.
 
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Raid-0 isn't completely useless you know, no it's not useful for the standard desktop user, but you have no idea what he is using his system for, so you don't know that it won't benifit him now do you?

I do agree that the 4 old 18gb cheetahs in raid-0 is going to be slower than a 150gb raptor, but for a lot less, 2x160gb SATA 3G drives will outperform the single 150gb raptor in most cases.
Click to expand...

RAID 0 is useless in 99% of situations. He didn't say he was doing high-end video editing. He didn't say he was a Photoshop professional.

And you are absolutely 100% wrong. 2x160GB SATA 3G drives will never outperform a Raptor 150 in average use. Just because AT put up a review showing that RAID 0 improves level load times slightly and improves ridiculous scenarios like copying a huge folder from one part of the drive to another doesn't prove anything. All they have shown is that a brand new 2x160GB RAID is slightly faster than a Raptor 74 in some obscure situations. They will not be faster than a Raptor 150, and they won't even be faster than a Raptor 74 most of the time.

 
Originally posted by: TostadaJust because AT put up a review showing that RAID 0 improves level load times slightly and improves ridiculous scenarios like copying a huge folder from one part of the drive to another doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...

I thought the review that dipped it's toe into the world of RAID showed the opposite, ie level load times increased...
 
Originally posted by: Tostada
Originally posted by: stevty2889
Raid-0 isn't completely useless you know, no it's not useful for the standard desktop user, but you have no idea what he is using his system for, so you don't know that it won't benifit him now do you?

I do agree that the 4 old 18gb cheetahs in raid-0 is going to be slower than a 150gb raptor, but for a lot less, 2x160gb SATA 3G drives will outperform the single 150gb raptor in most cases.
Click to expand...

RAID 0 is useless in 99% of situations. He didn't say he was doing high-end video editing. He didn't say he was a Photoshop professional.

And you are absolutely 100% wrong. 2x160GB SATA 3G drives will never outperform a Raptor 150 in average use. Just because AT put up a review showing that RAID 0 improves level load times slightly and improves ridiculous scenarios like copying a huge folder from one part of the drive to another doesn't prove anything. All they have shown is that a brand new 2x160GB RAID is slightly faster than a Raptor 74 in some obscure situations. They will not be faster than a Raptor 150, and they won't even be faster than a Raptor 74 most of the time.
Click to expand...

Well I don't have a 150gb raptor to compare it to, but my 160gb 3g drives far outperform my 36gb raptors in raid-0. I do realize the 150gb raptor is much much faster than the 36gb raptors were, and while my seek time isn't as good as the raptor, 101mb/s sustained, and 268mb/s burst is nothing to sneeze at...and that IS a higher sustained rate than the maximum 88.3 mb/s the 150GB raptor was getting according to the benchmarks at storagereview.com..

And I never once said it would help with gaming performance. Again you don't know what he is doing with his computer, so how do you know for sure he's not the 1% that would actualy benifit from it. Oh, and 3 seconds of loading time can make a huge differance in first person shooters, I'm always the first of my friends to load, which gives me a nice head start for grabbing the sniper rifle and finding a good hiding spot..
 
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Originally posted by: TostadaJust because AT put up a review showing that RAID 0 improves level load times slightly and improves ridiculous scenarios like copying a huge folder from one part of the drive to another doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...

I thought the review that dipped it's toe into the world of RAID showed the opposite, ie level load times increased...
Click to expand...

Well, it seems to show a slight trend towards RAID0 improving level load times.

http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2682&p=7

 
OK, well. I am looking at doing video editing. Also like to game a fair amount. Mostly doin a raid (and a raid with scsi u160 drives) just to learn how. The reason I was looking at 18g is cuase I figured that with 4 of em I could max out the PCI bus and perhaps equal a raptor 74gb. If I'm insane, than ok 😛 I'm just starting looking into scsi now and I thought it seemed fun. I cant barely afford 74gb Raptors, espically not the 150gb version.
I am interested however in the possibility of a few SATA II drives in some kind of RAID. At the moment I have a 3200+ AMD 64 laptop with a 5400rpm drive. Lets say I DID get 4xSATA II 7200 drives with 16mb cash. What kind of performance would I see? And is RAID 0 as big of a risk as some say? School work is the only valueable data I'll have on there. If I get High quality drives it does'nt seem like it should be an isue
 
Going from 5400 to 7200 would be massive, with or without the RAID. If i were you i'd spring for the WD4000KD if you can afford it, very fast (almost as fast as the Raptor 74gb) and loads of room to play in.

If not then go for two smaller drives and read from one and then write to the other. You'd see better performance than with a single RAID0 array.

Yes RAID0 is playing russian roulette with your data, but it's not all that bad as long as you don't need 100% uptime and keep good backups.
 
Well if you're going to be editing a movie, or recoding it, then you have the orriginal fim on one drive, then you save it to another one.
 
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Yes RAID0 is playing russian roulette with your data, but it's not all that bad as long as you don't need 100% uptime and keep good backups.
Click to expand...


It's worse than most people think as well - the impact of non-critical errors is vastly increased. Missing 4k out of a files is usually just as bad as missing 100k, and missing 4k out of 25 different files instead of 100k out of one file is far more likely with raid-0 than with single disks.

I recommend anyone considering it to do themselves a favor and *never* *ever* install a system partition onto raid-0. Assume that anything on that partition is going to vanish without warning at any time and then make the decision about what you are comfortable storing there.

 
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Yes RAID0 is playing russian roulette with your data, but it's not all that bad as long as you don't need 100% uptime and keep good backups.
Click to expand...


It's worse than most people think as well - the impact of non-critical errors is vastly increased. Missing 4k out of a files is usually just as bad as missing 100k, and missing 4k out of 25 different files instead of 100k out of one file is far more likely with raid-0 than with single disks.

I recommend anyone considering it to do themselves a favor and *never* *ever* install a system partition onto raid-0. Assume that anything on that partition is going to vanish without warning at any time and then make the decision about what you are comfortable storing there.
Click to expand...


I thought the idea was to RAID-0 your system partition and program files only, since they are super easy to restore if you have drive imaging software. As long as you keep your images up to date, you should be able to get back up and running again in less than an hour once you get the bad drive replaced, shouldn't you?
 
for your uses you should go with the larger hdd optioin. the seek advantages and str advantages of a 15k won't make a difference if you don't have the space, and if you are editing lots of dv then 1HR=13GB just for the raw avi file, then you need to work with the file, pretty soon you will have 25GB of dv and wonder how you have so much.

if you raid 1 pair of 15k u160 or u320 you max out the pci bus, or 90% of it. even a 1st gen 15k u320 18GB hdd will have a str of ~67MB/s and the newer ones are higher.

don't forget about the heat. i run a 15k and 10k in my machine but have active cooling on the hdds, this is necessary with these hdds.

if you rig was stricly gaming i would suggest going the 2x15k just for the responsiveness. i have used machines with 74GB raptors, 10k u320, 15k u320 and 15k raid0 u320 and found the single 15k u320 with an additional hdd of at least 7200rpm and 8mb cache to be the best setup, due to the pagefile being able to be on the other hdd. but since you do the video editing you should get the largest hdds you can find.

if you want to learn about scsi, well here it is - plug the card into a pci slot, connect the cable, connect the l.e.d. connector, set the jumper/s on the hdd for whatever # you want the drive to be with the boot drive being 0, if you have a few scsi hdds put on the jumper to stagger spinup or let the card tell the drive to spinup. go into the cards bios and format the drive, install the os. that is it...
 
Originally posted by: batmanuel
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Yes RAID0 is playing russian roulette with your data, but it's not all that bad as long as you don't need 100% uptime and keep good backups.
Click to expand...


It's worse than most people think as well - the impact of non-critical errors is vastly increased. Missing 4k out of a files is usually just as bad as missing 100k, and missing 4k out of 25 different files instead of 100k out of one file is far more likely with raid-0 than with single disks.

I recommend anyone considering it to do themselves a favor and *never* *ever* install a system partition onto raid-0. Assume that anything on that partition is going to vanish without warning at any time and then make the decision about what you are comfortable storing there.
Click to expand...


I thought the idea was to RAID-0 your system partition and program files only, since they are super easy to restore if you have drive imaging software. As long as you keep your images up to date, you should be able to get back up and running again in less than an hour once you get the bad drive replaced, shouldn't you?
Click to expand...

the only benefit for raid0 is a higher str with large files....
 
Originally posted by: Yoshi911
Well, I finally read up on all the RAID's at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1
SO... RAID 0 is basically to speedly read RAID 1 or 5 arrays such as RAID 0+1 or RAID 10, RAID 50, or RAID 100??? or simply how one orginizes such arrays
Click to expand...

raid 0 shouldn't even be a raid as it is not redundant(the R in raid). you are putting different portions of files on different hdds in an effort to increase thoroughput.
 
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: Yoshi911
Well, I finally read up on all the RAID's at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1
SO... RAID 0 is basically to speedly read RAID 1 or 5 arrays such as RAID 0+1 or RAID 10, RAID 50, or RAID 100??? or simply how one orginizes such arrays
Click to expand...

raid 0 shouldn't even be a raid as it is not redundant(the R in raid). you are putting different portions of files on different hdds in an effort to increase thoroughput.
Click to expand...

Heh, well with the original definition of RAID(redundent array of INEXPENSIVE disks) I don't think 150gb raptors fit in to that catagory either.. so "raid" 0 raptors should just be AD-0 raptors.

Oh and this is why it's very important to make regular backups when using raid-0.
 
Topic at hand:

Why compare a hard drive to an interface? It is impossible to boot from U160 or U320. 😉

SCSI always wins if you do your homework. Of course it will cost you some cache to do it write. 😉 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top