Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Computer Support (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f33-computer-support.html)
-   -   One regular drive, or two drives on RAID 0? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t675871-one-regular-drive-or-two-drives-on-raid-0-a.html)

cizzo 03-16-2009 04:30 PM

One regular drive, or two drives on RAID 0?
 
Hi all,

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are as to what is faster:
One 300 GB SATA 10,000rpm drive or
Two 150 GB SATA 10,00rpm drives on a RAID 0 configuration.

I know the RAID 0 config is more risky but was wonder which will be
faster.

why? 03-16-2009 05:55 PM

Re: One regular drive, or two drives on RAID 0?
 

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT), cizzo wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Just wondering what peoples thoughts are as to what is faster:


Read what's already been written, see links below.

>One 300 GB SATA 10,000rpm drive or
>Two 150 GB SATA 10,00rpm drives on a RAID 0 configuration.


Depends what you are doing. Every thing read off 1 drive or multiple
reads off of different drives. Your 1st config isn't RAID so there is
not likely to be a direct comparison to the dual spindle benefit of RAID
0 which isn't RAID. So the seek time for the 300 is half the 150 :-)

RAID 0 will have some benefits and a major weakness, see links below

www.google.com searched for

sata raid performance and you will find things like,
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-283-1.htm
and
http://techreport.com/articles.x/9124/1
Chipset Serial ATA and RAID performance compared

>I know the RAID 0 config is more risky but was wonder which will be
>faster.


If you know that, the other follows :-)

See links to previous RAID level information, fairly often posted in
24HSHD.

RAID Performance Issues
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/...cepts/perf.htm


Ripped from a previous post,
----------------------------

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:02:13 -0500, Frosty wrote:
>I have 2, 200GB Maxtor HD's (XP Pro, yada, ") and wanna eventually
>have 5.
>I wuz thinkin' about a RAID but had some reservations.


Then look in past posts in 24HSHD where it's been discussed before along
with posts of links about RAID advantages/disadvantages.

http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk?

The acnc link below has this to say about RAID 0.
I/O performance is greatly improved by spreading the I/O load across
many channels and drives



>I'm a-skeered that if I make one I'll lose all the data I got on the 2
>now.


If you pick RAID 0 , yes. It's not really a RAID level anyway, there is
no redundancy. RAID 0 on 2 x 200GB disks gives you 400GB but as files
are written on both drives in parts, if 1 drive fails you lose all data.

Using the 24HSHD search for, raid author:why? , others have also posted
links.

Ripped from past posts,

There is a good guide here, and just two URLs to get started. (from
2002)
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/why.htm
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/...evels/comp.htm

(from 2003)
From another poster, recommended this link
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html
and the link I use
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/index.htm

There are more.

>Is that true? Must I lost everything in order to make a RAID array?
>And I wuz gonna make one of them kinda RAID's that made fer one HUGE
>HD rather than redundant HD's but I hear that if one craps then I lose
>everything.


>What to do?


Reading, see the URLs above.
----------------------------


Me

cizzo 03-16-2009 07:39 PM

Re: One regular drive, or two drives on RAID 0?
 
On Mar 16, 11:55*am, why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT), cizzo wrote:
> >Hi all,

>
> >Just wondering what peoples thoughts are as to what is faster:

>
> Read what's already been written, see links below.
>
> >One 300 GB SATA 10,000rpm drive or
> >Two 150 GB SATA 10,00rpm drives on a RAID 0 configuration.

>
> Depends what you are doing. Every thing read off 1 drive or multiple
> reads off of different drives. Your 1st config isn't RAID so there is
> not likely to be a direct comparison to the dual spindle benefit of RAID
> 0 which isn't RAID. So the seek time for the 300 is half the 150 :-)
>
> RAID 0 will have some benefits and a major weakness, see links below
>
> www.google.comsearched for
>
> sata raid performance and you will find things like,http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-283-1.htm
> andhttp://techreport.com/articles.x/9124/1
> Chipset Serial ATA and RAID performance compared
>
> >I know the RAID 0 config is more risky but was wonder which will be
> >faster.

>
> If you know that, the other follows :-)
>
> See links to previous RAID level information, fairly often posted in
> 24HSHD.
>
> RAID Performance Issueshttp://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/concepts/perf.htm
>
> Ripped from a previous post,
> ----------------------------
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:02:13 -0500, Frosty wrote:
> >I have 2, 200GB Maxtor HD's (XP Pro, yada, ") and wanna eventually
> >have 5.
> >I wuz thinkin' about a RAID but had some reservations.

>
> Then look in past posts in 24HSHD where it's been discussed before along
> with posts of links about RAID advantages/disadvantages.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk?
>
> The acnc link below has this to say about RAID 0.
> I/O performance is greatly improved by spreading the I/O load across
> many channels and drives
>
> >I'm a-skeered that if I make one I'll lose all the data I got on the 2
> >now.

>
> If you pick RAID 0 , yes. It's not really a RAID level anyway, there is
> no redundancy. RAID 0 on 2 x 200GB disks gives you 400GB but as files
> are written on both drives in parts, if 1 drive fails you lose all data.
>
> Using the 24HSHD search for, raid author:why? *, others have also posted
> links.
>
> Ripped from past posts,
>
> There is a good guide here, and just two URLs to get started. (from
> 2002)http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/...evels/comp.htm
>
> (from 2003)
> From another poster, recommended this linkhttp://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html
> and the link I usehttp://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/index.htm
>
> There are more.
>
> >Is that true? Must I lost everything in order to make a RAID array?
> >And I wuz gonna make one of them kinda RAID's that made fer one HUGE
> >HD rather than redundant HD's but I hear that if one craps then I lose
> >everything.
> >What to do?

>
> Reading, see the URLs above.
> ----------------------------
>
> Me


Thank you! Excellent articles, and yes I found my answer which I
should have know being an IT tech; the two drives will be faster but
the trade off is no fault tolerance. I will be setting this up for
one of our users as we back up everything on the network.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.