Which hard drive config would you rather have ?

[Soulkeeper]

which would you rather have:

4x 7200rpm ata133 drives (raid)
2x 10k sata drives (raid)
1x 15k scsi drive

 

[BurnItDwn]

4 x ATA133 drives in raid 1 or 5 in my home Server ... large amount of space, speed not important
2 x 10k SATA in raid 0 for my gaming box ... (generally sustained transfer speed is more important than seek times for loading maps/levels)
1 x 15K scsi drive for a mid to high volume DB server, or something thats going to see a LOT of usage a LOT of the time. Or 1 x 15K scsi drive for a High end workstation

 

[jdogg707]

Depends on whether I needed speed or storage. The first would be nice for a good combination, put them in RAID 5 and enjoy. The final option would be very fast but also not the most cost effective. For speed/cost effectiveness I would go with the middle combo.

 

[Soulkeeper]

for me speed is the main thing
i'm not too concerned about the storage room because i prob won't use more than 20gb

i just wanna upgrade from my 20gb ata100 2mb cache hard drive because it is starting to feel slow

 

[Corporate Thug]

2x 10k sata drives

 

[jdogg707]

I agree with Shady and would grab a pair of 36GB Raptors. If money were no object a pair of 15K SCSI drives would be the fastest thing you could buy.

 

[Soulkeeper]

would 4x ata133 drives give more realworld throughput tho ??

 

[Nebor]

I'd go with a Ferrari 575 Maranelo, I think.

 

[BurnItDwn]

4x ATA133 drives would allow for faster sustained buffered file transfers if you put them in raid0. However, raid0 with ATA133 is not very smart unless you have a good backup system, and you are more than willing to use it.

If you put them in raid5, it would be really slow and it would eat up lots of CPU cycles, unless you bought a really expensive hardware raid card.
If you put them in raid 1+0, the read speeds would be just about as fast as in raid0, but the write speeds would be not nearly as good, however, if 1 drive goes bad, its no big deal since you don't loose any data.

4 x ata133 drives in raid0 or raid 1+0 would be the best for like, game loading times, however, for some things, like boot times, or general system swiftness, I would think a single 15K drive would perform the best.

your best bet would probably be raid0 of Raptors ... that would be much less expensive than a raid array of 15k scsi drives, and it would offer a much better seek time than that of 7200rpm ATA133 drives. It would also enable good throughput (better than a single 15K drive, though not as much as 4 7200rpm ATA133 drives).

 

[Soulkeeper]

thanks for the input everyone

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

Just finished my build with SCSI this weekend. Had to download the latest Adapted drivers to a floppy and use them when XP said to press F6 to install drivers. I'll let you know what kind of speed and loading times I get as I installed drivers and software. The other reason I stay with SCSI is because I have a DDS3 dat tape drive. Yes, there are other choices, but I've already got the drive, it's what I use, and it works. The real test will be when I get UT2K4 installed. In the old Q2 days, I was always the first into the server on a new map. I expect the same thing with this new system. I'll be going from last into the map, to first with UT2K4.