SATA question

[Holobits]

Hello Folks I just need help with a quick hardware question. I have been buildin computers for the last 4 years but have never built a SATA system and would like to this winter. My question is do I have to use the sata drives in a RAID 0 or RAID 1 array? Can I set them up as 2 independent drives?

I admit to not knowing alot about how to set-up a SATA system and I have been trying to look for a good guide for information on the different ways you can set-up SATA drives. I understand what a RAID 0 and a RAID 1 can do for you as I have read articles on that. My plans (if I can do it) are to run 2 WD 74 gb Raptors as 2 independent drives. I would like windows XP to recognize one as drice C: and the other as Drive D:

This is easy to do on a ATA 133/100/66 ide set-up but I was looking forward to something alittle different. I realize SATA is running as ATA 150 and there is an argument out there to wait for the next generation of SATA to come out. The reason I would like the Raptors is for the warranty and the improved load times for programs and files. Any help or advice in this matter would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

 

[Kenazo]

yup, you can set them up as 2 seperate drives.

However, I don't think the performance boost offered by Raptors is going to be that impressive, especially considering how much $ it's going to cost you. If you are only planning on using it for normal every day stuff around the house, I wouldn't bother w/ the raptors.

Have a read through this article before deciding to lay down so much $ on so little storage. Really, I think you'd be best off getting cheaper SATA drives like one 160gig.

 

[Holobits]

Thanks Kenazo!
I did read that article as well when it was released. I figured it was discussing the difference between running a single SATA versus running 2 in RAID 0. As for application purposes I was looking into running games alot. I am mostly a gamer at heart and build computers just for this purpose. I know Raptors or any SATA drive doesn't help with fram rates as it only helps with load times. As for any normal SATA drives what would you recommend? 160gb range is what I am aiming for so if you can recommend a realiable SATA drive that would be great as I am not well versed in what is out there in storage media. Other than running through SATA drives on NEWEGG and seeing other peoples comments and trying to read an article here and there.

Any comments are welcome and thanks for the help already!

 

[DarkAmeba]

I like Seagate drives

However... I cannot recommend the Raptor Hard Drives enough. If you're a gamer, you'll LOVE the reduced load times. IMHO they're easily worth the money.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: DarkAmeba
I like Seagate drives

However... I cannot recommend the Raptor Hard Drives enough. If you're a gamer, you'll LOVE the reduced load times. IMHO they're easily worth the money.

I agree with both his comments.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: DarkAmeba
I like Seagate drives

However... I cannot recommend the Raptor Hard Drives enough. If you're a gamer, you'll LOVE the reduced load times. IMHO they're easily worth the money.

I run a Seagate 7200.7 120 gig SATA drive, and it is definately an improvement over my old ATA100 drive. True, the raptor is a bit quicker yet, however it is also a fair bit more money. The 74 gig Raptor is $180, or $2.44/gig @ newegg, compared to $90 or $0.75/gig for the Seagate.

Take a look at the charts on this page. In UT 2004, the load times for a 74 gig Raptor II setup were about 29.4 seconds for a level, compared to 33.2 seconds for the seagate. In Far Cry the Seagate was closer yet (42.7 compared to 39.7 for the Raptor II setup).

Is the Raptor II faster, yes. Is it enough faster by enough to justify spending 3.25x more money per gig for it? I don't think so. But, hey if money is not the issue, let'er rip.