WD 80GB w/ 8MB SATA hard drives - $60 shipped!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SwishSween

Senior member
Sep 27, 2001
648
0
71
Originally posted by: Midwayman
I thought anandtech did an article a little while ago on how raid 0 netted almost 0 performance benefit and double the risk of data loss.

Here is that article http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101.

I think anybody considering doing a raid 0 array should this article. I was contemplating building a raid 0 array until I read that article, and now it just seems like a complete waste of money (unless you like bragging about how well your pc performs in a few benchmark tests as opposed to any real-word difference). Raid 1 might insulate you from hard drive failure for a slightly longer time, but it's still not a replacement for doing regular backups. I've heard of too many people that have had both drives go on a server at the same time (in raid 1).

From what is being said in the article, the modern disc caching techniques and extra memory buffer give you the performance gains that raid 0 might have given you with your old 30gb drive with 2mb cache. And with the raptors, you're really only seeing gains over other modern drives because of the higher disk rpm, density, seek time, etc.

Seems like those of your with one raptor for the OS and some other drive for regular stuff have the right idea. Raid 0 seems to be a big waste of money at this point in comparison to the former strategy.

Oh, and their comment in that article about raid 0 halving the mean time to failure is like saying that by having a raid 1 array that you are doubling your mean time between failure. Most drives last about the same amount of time if they get out of their infancy. One might die slightly sooner, but the other will most likely follow soon after. I just thought that was a slightly nonsensical comment.
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
22
81
Originally posted by: Navid
Raid0, statistically, doubles the possibility of data loss due to drive failure since you will lose your data if either of the two drives fails.

that's why you raid 0 the raptors for your os and applications but raid 1 your storage. hence loss of data is not an issue.
 

Lestan

Member
Feb 12, 2002
56
0
0
Originally posted by: superHARD

...Really...
...Raid 1 can help read times...LOL


Don't laugh, it's true - Raid 1 does improve read times IF you have a raid controller that is smart enough to interleave the reads. Basically you have identical info on 2 (or more) disks. So say your cpu needs blocks 1-10, normal drives read those 1-10 in order, whereas raid1 can read block 1 from disk1 and block 2 from disk2 simultaneously, so it would fetch all 10 blocks in half the time. Raid 0 and raid 5 suffer in read times since they have to compute where the next block is and this creates overhead.

This is why they put large databases on raid 1 instead of raid 0 or 5 - you get data redundancy and much better read throughput. I also used to laugh when anyone said Raid 1 has faster read times, and then I got schooled by a db server architect. :)

The rest of this post is dead on about modern day raid 0 pros/cons. The main problem is that most raid controllers (like onboard ones on mbs) are suck so you don't benefit over a fast single disk like the raptor. A decent server-class caching raid controller would be a whole different story.
 

k1114

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2002
1,153
0
76
Originally posted by: Staples
Well I use a Raptor for my OS and the programs that I run often. Already 2 years old. I use a second hard drive for storage.

Same setup here and I love it, 36gb raptor and 120gb wd se
 

drinkmorejava

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
3,567
7
81
then again, how many people get a raptor and don't do a RAID with it

I just read that anadtech article. I guess the only thing I can say is duh. Of course a RAID isn't going to give you much better performance if you are only working with relatively small, spread out files; such as with an office suite. They're are meant for large file accessing like massively huge databases and in my case, video files of several gigabytes. Of course though, any RAID will still do poorly if it is not properly defragmented
 

carpenter

Platinum Member
May 31, 2003
2,880
0
0
hans007 has the right idea. I've been running a raid 0 setup for quite awhile now and regular setup in my other boxes. Going to switch out the raid setup soon. No advantage that I can see. I'm going to a raptor for os and large standard drive for storage. Sometimes I think the people who rave about raid0 have never actually had their fingers on the keyboard of one. :) There superhard, now they can take a slap at me for awhile and give you a break. It'll help bring their post counts up.
 

PRAISETHELORD

Member
Apr 18, 2002
106
0
0
I have had 2 raptors for a year already. I also have another 160gig for storage .. I setup Ghost 9.0 to automaticly same a image of my drive to the secoend hard drive. Once a week it creates a new image and replaced the other one. No Fear of losing data that way. and Yes they are fast.

I can install Windows XP PRo From start to finish in 13min

Boot. copy. Reboot install and activate... 13 min.... Its fun.
 

gnef

Senior member
Nov 17, 2001
201
0
0
13 minutes? that's pretty impressive. I am using a seagate cheetah x15.2 (36lp, i think?) from about 2.5 years ago, and i just recently did a reinstall on my machine, and i think it still took me about half an hour to finish the installation of windows xp pro... i can't remember exact times though, but i do have a lot of hardware that it has to scan through, i suppose? What are the other specs on your machine?

-Gnef

 

genius99

Member
Aug 21, 2001
105
0
0
Is it best to go with the new 915 or 925 board like what Yo2 said? Are these the best Intel boards to choose from? :confused:

Are there any AMD processor supported MBs that have RAID on them like the Intel ones?

Thanks!

 

genius99

Member
Aug 21, 2001
105
0
0
casualsax3, thanks for the info. I am looking at building a new box with SATA and a 64bit processor :) I might get the one you recommended.
 

Gerbil333

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
3,072
0
76
How loud are these drives?

I have a 74gb Raptor, and it's the quietest drive I have when idling. My Seagates are louder; they emit a very annoying high pitched noise.

I want a second drive for storage, and I want it to be idle silently.
 

Tsunami982

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
936
0
0
Originally posted by: Gerbil333
How loud are these drives?

I have a 74gb Raptor, and it's the quietest drive I have when idling. My Seagates are louder; they emit a very annoying high pitched noise.

I want a second drive for storage, and I want it to be idle silently.

i think there is something wrong with your seagates... mine are inaudible idling and barely audible when accessing. the WD 80's are definitely louder than any of the seagates i have (3 80's, 2 120's, 2 200's... not all in one computer of course).
 

xDanielx

Senior member
Oct 26, 1999
206
0
0
Ok, someone needs to change the topic because it just ISN'T true. I too was a Raid 0 user (and still am) but I found no real benefit to it. I also have 2 74 gig raptors, but once I found out the speed increase was non existant I put Windows on one and the swap file on the other.
 

czech09

Diamond Member
Nov 13, 2004
8,990
0
76
I already have one I'll either pick up one more off of the Egg or just pick up a matching one off the forums. Thanks for the link.
 

Gerbil333

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
3,072
0
76
Originally posted by: Tsunami982
Originally posted by: Gerbil333
How loud are these drives?

I have a 74gb Raptor, and it's the quietest drive I have when idling. My Seagates are louder; they emit a very annoying high pitched noise.

I want a second drive for storage, and I want it to be idle silently.

i think there is something wrong with your seagates... mine are inaudible idling and barely audible when accessing. the WD 80's are definitely louder than any of the seagates i have (3 80's, 2 120's, 2 200's... not all in one computer of course).

Nope, they're not faulty. It's my ears. If you read carefully, you'll find some people who hear what I hear. Half the people I know can't hear the sound even when I ask them to listen for it, including the family members who uses the drives. The other half only heard it after I pointed it out and said they likely wouldn't have ever noticed had I not said anything.

To me, the noise is VERY apparent and bothersome. SilentPCReview best describes what I and a small number of others can distinguish:

High frequency noise: Probably considered the most annoying of all hard drive noises, most drives of 7200 rpm spindle speed or faster are characterized by this whine, typically at 8~16 kHz. Even trace amounts can be very annoying because of its psychoacoustic impact and its high directionality: A simple movement of the head can cause the highly directional sound to come in and out of audibility, causing a dynamic stuttering effect that drives some people nuts. Source Text

The "high directionality" is what bothers me. With my head positioned in certain spots at the computer desk, I can't hear a thing. If I move my head 1cm, the noise is piercingly loud! I think everyone will agree that sitting completely still while computing isn't practical.

Anyway, the sound is also affected by case design. My Seagate 40gb 2mb cache, which I've had for roughly two years, is in a small case that isolates the hard drive very well. It's practically silent. Due to the design of the case, I can't hear this drive unless I go looking for the noise.

My Seagate 120gb 8mb cache drive, which I've had for about a year, is much louder. However, the case is very open. There are huge air vents in the front of the tower (a Cheiftec Dragon--click the link in my sig. for pics), and it lets out a lot of sound. Thus, I can hear every sound that comes out of that machine. I imagine if I swapped the 120gb and 40gb Seagates between the two cases, the 40gb drive would be loud, and the 120gb would be silent.

To support that theory, up until a few months ago, I had a WD400JB in my main computer, which uses the same Chieftec Dragon case. Idle noise was very noticeable, but it wasn?t the high pitched kind; it sounded rougher I suppose, with a deeper resonance. It wasn?t annoying, though it was noise, so it wasn?t pleasing either. Anyway, after upgrading to a WD 74gb Raptor, I put the WD400JB in my junk computer. That machine uses a small case with a fairly isolated hd cage. Now the WD40JB is significantly quieter. I don?t notice its idle noise much, and seek noise has reduced quite a bit as well.

Seek noise on the 40gb Seagate is almost inaudible. The only time?s I?ve heard it seek have been during defragging and while loading HL2 (the game can consume up to 950MBs in certain instances). The 120gb drive seems to be louder, but again, the case is likely the reason for that.

I stand by my claim that my WD 74gb Raptor is quietest drive I?ve personally owned when idling. I?ll admit that the Samsung 120gb 8mb cache SATA hd I used in a machine I built for a friend was the quietest drive I?ve ever used, but I didn?t own that :p . That thing is SILENT. I literally could not hear a peep out of it, even while loading games or something that would allow me to hear a miniscule amount of seek noise on my Seagates. My Raptor?s idle noise comes close; I can only hear it idle if I take the case panel off and put my hear within about 3 inches of the drive. Thus, I?m very happy with it. Idle noise is what bothers me. I don?t mind seek noise at all, and that?s a good thing, because the Raptor seeks louder than anything I?ve ever had. However, it would be quieter in a better case, such as the Sonata. If I hold the case, much of the seek noise can be alleviated?the Raptor simply moves with so much force and speed that it?s shaking the entire case!

Ok, I digress. Gotta get some sleep.

Cliffs: No, my Seagates aren?t faulty. I?ve had one for over 1 year, and another for 2 years, and they work great. It?s my ears (refer to SilentPCReview link above). Also, I?m talking purely about idle noise. Seek noise is a completely different story, and I couldn?t care less about seek noise.

BACK to my question: If at all possible, could someone compare the idle noise of these $60 WD800JD's to a WD Raptor or a Samsung drive? I want it quiet. Try and avoid bias, please. I've noticed a lot of biased hd user reviews. For instance, I've used two WD400JBs, neither of which have been anywhere near silent, yet user reviews claim "QUIET and FAST, BEST hd EVER!!!!111!". Come on, fanboys, fess up!
 

casualsax3

Member
Mar 14, 2005
85
0
0
Originally posted by: KuJaX
Originally posted by: casualsax3
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/08/1311241&tid=198

Of course RAID 0 gives you performance benefits. Anandtech's testing was very nearsighted.

Genius99, I just picked up this board for my Athlong 64 3000+


did you register on anandtech just to put that article?

Yes, but I've been lingering for quite some time, I just figured I'd finally register and throw some input.


Originally posted by: genius99
casualsax3, thanks for the info. I am looking at building a new box with SATA and a 64bit processor :) I might get the one you recommended.

I'll have it this weekend, I'll let you know how it turns out. Very good reviews though, especially for the price.

 

genius99

Member
Aug 21, 2001
105
0
0
I just bought a crap load of stuff from Newegg including these hard drives, I'm gonna make a sweet box with a RAID 1 setup :)

ANTEC Internal Blue LED light tube -Retail $13.49

AeroCool Silver ATX Mid Tower Case With Side window & jet, Model "AEROENGINE-C SS" - Retail $56.00

Western Digital 80GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model WD800JD, OEM Drive Only $60.50 (bought 2)

Kingmax SuperRAM Series Dual Channel Kit 184-Pin 1GB(512MBx2) DDR PC-3200, Model $93.99

ECS "KN1 Extreme" NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket 939 CPU -RETAIL $108.00

AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache, Socket 939 64-bit Processor - Retail $151.00

Product total: $543.48 Shipping & Handling: $ 24.96 Total (Before tax): $568.44
 

casualsax3

Member
Mar 14, 2005
85
0
0
You just built the EXACT same PC as me except for the case. You didn't mention your graphics card though. I went with a Radeon X600XT.