Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > One regular drive, or two drives on RAID 0?

Reply
Thread Tools

One regular drive, or two drives on RAID 0?

 
 
cizzo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2009
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
why?
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2009

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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cizzo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2009
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Losing Drives - Finding Drives - Losing Drives mel@no.spam.com Computer Support 2 09-21-2007 10:16 PM
F6 for SCSI or RAID ? (i.e. it's not to do with SATA or IDE ?) + installing windows on a RAID boot device jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk Computer Information 0 01-31-2007 07:45 PM
SATA - Raid and Non Raid Question BigAl.NZ@gmail.com Computer Support 1 01-11-2007 12:16 AM
Does x64 require a SATA RAID Driver to install non-RAID SATA Drive =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?= Windows 64bit 6 07-18-2005 05:45 AM
Converting RAID 0 array to RAID 0+1 - Advice sought. Mod Computer Support 0 11-26-2003 08:11 PM



Advertisments
 



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57