• 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.

Single Raptor drive, or Dual SATA 7200 Raid 0??

L

leonmac73

Member
I am wondering, would a SINGLE Raptor SATA drive at 10,000 rpm be faster than dual SATA drives at 7200 rpm in a RAID 0 config?
 
raid isnt that much of an increase in performance. it primarily helps in speeding up large data transfers.
 
Single Raptor 74G is faster. I'd not use a pair of giant HDs and RAID 0 them for boot drive, but only because I can't clone a pair of RAID 0 HD to a single HD using ghost for backup. So for me, it's Raptor for boot HD, then a pair of HD RAID 0 for storage, and another HD in ext. enclosure for backup storage.
 
Depends on the drives and the RAID 0 stripe. Your sustained reads and writes will be much higher with RAID0; seek times will likely be twice as good with the RAPTOR; bursts will likely be higher with the RAID.

 
Run HD Tach on your current drive, then look up one of the numerous Raptor benchmarks on sites like this one. I don't have numbers off the top of my head for either drive, and you haven't even posted a specific model.
 
Sorry, I am running a Western Digital ATA-100 80gb, 8meg buffer. Just looking for recommendations on a faster drive/config for my new system. Thanks.
 
Burst is the peak data transfer rate, that is still not anywhere close to theoretical throughput but is significantly faster than the sustained transfer rate. Seek time is the time necessary for the drive to find a particular piece of data.

Sequential reads are basically the lowest-stress form of activity for a drive (besides reading from its buffer), since it can basically perform like a record player. Now imagine a record player that has to continually lift its head to find another song, then another, then another. This is seeking, and that's why lower seek times are prized for server applications and the like, where non-sequential access is common.
 
If you get a 74GB Raptor, your boot times will decrease, and so will certain other disk-dependent tasks. However, you won't see a significant decrease in loading times for games, or any other CPU-intensive task. It won't make gameplay faster for current games, because the way those work, they load up a level (or the entire game) and then run it out of RAM. I understand your wish to match your processor with a capable disk, but it won't speed up your already super-fast machine noticeably much unless you run fairly disk-intensive programs, and especially ones with random disk access.

That said, if you can afford a 4000+, you can afford a measly $170 for a drive! 🙂 I'm sure whatever you get will make you happy. It's just that that's still expensive for 74GB of space, and it's not going to perform like a 15k SCSI drive...

Edit: I'm serious about that advice. Run HD Tach on your current drive, then read a few good Raptor reviews. It should help you come to a better understanding of what you can expect.
 
I'd not use a pair of giant HDs and RAID 0 them for boot drive, but only because I can't clone a pair of RAID 0 HD to a single HD using ghost for backup.
Click to expand...

i moved a single hard drive image to a raid 0 setup made up of two 74gb raptor 10,000 rpm drives with no problems,THEN i ghost that image to a single 160gb hd with two partitions of 50gb and 100gb and stored that image on the 100gb partition,THEN used a bootable floppy to test image integrity and ability to restore that image.

clearly you are mistaken there BAKED

yes the sata raptor was fast when i tested them using HDTACH,and doubled when i tested the raid 0 array,it does make a difference when you burn a DVD backup to protect my DVD collection,AND yes i purchased my DVDs and feel that i have the right to protect my investment.
 
I currently have the following system

P4 3.4ghz
1gb DDR2 PC4200
160gb SATA 7200rpm w/ NCQ
ATI X800XT

Will upgrading to a Raptor 74gb for my OS and apps and using the 160gb SATA w/ NCQ simply for storage show a significant improvement in speed? In a word, would the difference in performance be noticeable?
 
I understand. My server (PowerEdge 2600) runs dual P4s at 2.4ghz with HT. I have 3 18gb 15K SCSI drives in raid 0 (redundancy, parity not important for my data). I know I won't get comparible results, but I feel my main workstation (4000+) is bottlenecked with my current drive config. I'm not sure if I should wait until SATA increases from 150 to 300 this Summer, or 600 later in the year, or just go with the Raptors. I will take your advice and run HD Tach and see what I get. You all have been a big help, can you tell me where to find HD Tach? Thanks very much.
 
i would not consider another manufactuer,i have no reason to,WDs work for me,the warr is good and i dont put cost first,AND i have herd of others having probs with seagates warr obligation stand
 
Originally posted by: leonmac73
What do you think about the Seagate Barracuda drives? They are always pitted up against the Raptors on bench tests.
Click to expand...

They are awesome but Raptors are in a league of there own.

Also going from SCSI to a Raptor is a huge downgrade. SCSI> *.*

Keep your 15K SCSI drives. If you REALLY need more speed than that get a motherboard with a 64bit 133mhz PCI-X (NOT E) slot and add a PCI-X U320 SCSI adapter. That is about as good as it get unless you have >$5000 to throw away for one of those RAM Drives/

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: blazer
Click to expand...
i moved a single hard drive image to a raid 0 setup made up of two 74gb raptor 10,000 rpm drives with no problems,THEN i ghost that image to a single 160gb hd with two partitions of 50gb and 100gb and stored that image on the 100gb partition,THEN used a bootable floppy to test image integrity and ability to restore that image.

clearly you are mistaken there BAKED
.[/quote]

Read my post again, I never said anything about image because I don't use image backup. I only use HD to HD clone with Ghost. When you do HD to HD clone, ghost takes cache size into consideration too. 8MB to 2MB HDis ok, but not 16MB to 2MB.
 
My dual Xeon 2.4Ghz server is running the SCSI drives, I need something that's going to give me peak performance with my Athlon 4000+. I agree, the Raptors are running the show, but that's a lot of money for a 74Gb drive, almost twice as much as the Barracuda. The Barracuda drives cost almost as much as regular run of the mill IDE drives, and can at least keep up with the Raptors in SOME bench tests. Seems logical to me....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top