To Raid or Not to Raid ?????

[FOH]

I am building a new system and looking at a couple of Hard Drive options:

1. Using one WD 120G / 8MB cache on a Abit KR7A-133

or

2. Using two IBM 80G 120GXP on a Abit KR7A-133Raid

Without getting into a war on which brand is better (there are plenty of threads on this already!!!!!) , I am wondering which one would give better overall speed/performance?

Also I have read somewhere (can't remember where) that Windows has size limitations for hard drives. But I also have read on the forums here, that one person has put two of the WD 120G drives on a raid for a total of 240G. He didn't mention any problems. What is the straight scoop on this??? BTW I am using Win2k OS.

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Just go for the single WD drive. Honestly, IDE RAID is a joke. IDE drives have a much slower access time than SCSI. If you want RAID, shell out the bucks for a SCSI setup. More than likely you're another home user who will never see any advantage from it though...

my $0.02

This subject is here like every other day...

 

[hoihtah]

if you know what you are doing...
raiding is definately a big plus.

setting up correctly can be a headache...
but once you set it up... you'll see about 50% increase in speed... when transferring a big file.

i would disagree with chrisisbored in that ide raid is a joke.
i'll tell you what is not a joke... scsi drive + scsi card.

it's no laughing matter.

i think what you need to ask yourself is...

HOW MUCH MONEY ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND? AND FOR WHAT?

once you have those two questions answered... finding a right configuration for your need will be a easy match.

maybe it's the late night hour ... but i just hate people trashing IDE or SCSI... without giving both sides credit for what it does.

ide provides storage at a low cost.
ide raid provides storage at a low cost with fast sustain transfer rate.
scsi provides quality storage at a high cost with a fast speed.
scsi raid provides superb quality storage at crazy cost with crazy configurations of speed.

so there i said it.

people please don't trash ide ... just cause it used to be a hands down loser to scsi. things have changed quite a bit.

don't take my word for it... try running two wd 120gb/8mb with stripe... and tell me ide sucks... or that ide is a joke.

(2)WD 120gb/8mb = $250*2 = $500
240 gb

FUJITSU SCSI HARD DRIVE 73GB 10,000RPM MODEL = $655.

i don't even have to go into the scsi card vs. ide-raid card cost.

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Better yet, try running a real RAID array other than RAID 0.

 

[dj4005]

Whether or not RAID will be of benefit to you is a matter of what sorts of applications YOU use.

No - you won't see a lot of benefit on day to day use (lots of little files, such as an operating system or most applications).

IF you need the speed on large files, RAID-0 is the way to go. And if you are worried about the alleged "danger" of splitting your data between two drives, there is the simple expediency of doing backups (duh!)

IF you need redundancy, there is RAID-1.

If you need capacity (video or sound files for instance), either RAID-0 or JBOD is an option.

And IF you find that that RAID on the motherboard or controller card doesn't give you the performance you need, there are always the RAID-5 systems, or SCSI. You simply pay for the amount of performance you want.


One last tid-bit. You might want to ask if the people who have negative things to say about RAID if they are actually HAVE and USE RAID. There's lots of sniping from the peanut gallery.

I'm on a KR7A-RAID, having just moved up from a KT7-RAID. I edit large audio files (typically a gig or so each). NO, it's not a typical application, but it's MY machine, and I do what I want with it. And I do it fast.

 

[FOH]

Thanks for all the replies. I don't need to go crazy with a super fast/expensive SCSI system (I have a G4 Mac running Pro Tools audio recording system for that). What I am after is a computer that will run reasonably fast on normal applications. I don't do a lot of gaming, just once in a while. I do some video editing and once in a while I will work on an audio project that I have recorded in the studio. There are three things IMHO that I should consider in this discussion--Price, Security, and Speed.

On price, that is not an issue because they are close to the same price, the twin IBM system is slightly higher, but you get 40G more storage space, so I think that cancels any price advantage out.

On security, that is not an issue because I do backup any important files.

So that leaves us with speed. O.K., I admit, I am one of those people that expect Publisher or VideoStudio to be loaded and ready to work, BEFORE I can get my finger off of the mouse!!! If I were to do a large audio or graphic intensive project, which system would give me the best overall speed/load times?? Maybe there is not a clear winner here, what do you guys and gals think?????

 

[HouRman]

I think the clear winner for your instance would be to get a single IDE 7200 rpm drive. Like a western digital caviar for performance or a Seagate barricuda IV for silence.

Even for those programs you're talking about, u only open them once and it takes a matter of seconds. I wouldn't waste the money and hassle on a raid system for home use.

 

[FOH]

Thanks for the reply. You said

<< I wouldn't waste the money and hassle on a raid system for home use. >>

I am not disagreeing with the fact that I might be better off with the single drive, but I disagree with the reasoning you used to come to that conclusion --- money and hassle. I have already determined that there is virtually no difference in price (considering the extra storage) and as far as hassle, I don't think it is a hassle at all running raid. I am running it in my system now (the one I am selling to build a new one) and have never had any problems with it.

I know from experience that using the same drives, raid is faster. What I am not sure about is whether the new WD 120/8MB drive is as fast or faster than a IBM 120GXP raid system. If speed were the only issue I would get a WD 120/8MB raid system (or SCSI).

What I am trying to do is compare two different approaches to storage that cost virtually the same. So with that said I would like to focus on just the performance difference between the two systems.

 

[BigJ]

Personally, I would go with RAID from the many reasons people have stated, but shy away from the IBM hard drives. Ever since IBM released those horrible 75gxps, I have been very very reluctant to go back towards them. I have also heard of quite a few reports about the 60gxps. My recommendation is either the Maxtor 80gb 7200RPM ATA-133 Drives or the Seagate Barracuda IV 80gb 7200RPM ATA-100 drives. Both cost a few bucks cheaper then the IBM, with the Maxtor giving you the option of ATA-133 and the Seagate being extremely silent. Also, if one drive did happen to fail, Maxtor's RMA service is extraordinary. One of my drives, a 40gb (45gig from the staples deal where some ppl got 5 extra gigs) had failed and I notified Maxtor. I did the Advanced RMA service where they send the drive first, and it was here within 3 days, and on top of that, they sent a 60gb 7200rpm drive to replace the failed.