What is faster 2 WD 7200RPM 16MB cach 400GB in Raid 0 or 1 WD 10k 36GB HD?

Wizzard005 · Jan 16, 2007, 07:33 PM

Hey all,

This is my first post. I have a simple question. I have a Very nice gaming Rig setup, but i also use it for work too. Here are my specs

Right now:

AMD 3500 AM2 @ 2.6Ghz
ASUS MB with nvidia 590 chipset
2GB DDR2
2 x eVAG 8800's GTS PCI 2 x 16x
Sounblaster Xtreme Music
5.1 Home Theature Reciver with Studio Monitors

I have atm 1 x 36GB Wester Digital 10k RPM HD, but just ordered 2 400GB WD 16MB cach HD's from Frys. I was thinking of raid 0 ing them, I know i have to se the sizes to 160GB...

Just wondering that is better, I dont like storing my data on the same drive, so if i ever have a crash I am sol......

Judas · Jan 16, 2007, 07:38 PM

hmm...

i'd definitely lean towards the raid 0 of the 2 7200rpm 16mb drives (and it's probably be similare price value)

But it ALL DEPENDS on the raid controller, and frankly, i'm not very impressed with nvidia's raid controllers, hell thier IDE/sata controllers are quite terrible IMO

**temeteus82** · Jan 16, 2007, 07:38 PM

I think that those two hard dirves in RAID 0 are faster...

CDsDontBurn · Jan 16, 2007, 07:53 PM

the RAID 0, hands down.

i've got two 7200RPM 80Gb 8Mb Cache Seagates in RAID 0, and they outperform my single 36Gb raptor

.

Judas · Jan 16, 2007, 07:55 PM

well faster in terms of overall performance..

but i doubt any raid configuration will touch the 10,000 rpm low latency speeds of the raptor.

I just have found that the nvidia raid controller perform quite poorly, sometimes as bad as being rather unreliable at times.

CDsDontBurn · Jan 16, 2007, 07:56 PM

well, i was referring to the data transfer bandwith, not latency timing. my raptor still does outperform my RAID set up there, yes.

Wizzard005 · Jan 16, 2007, 08:03 PM

I wasnt going to use the nvidia Raid, MB also has the Silicon Image 3132 Raid 0, 1,

I am useing the ASUS M2N32-SLI

What is Raid 0+1?

I would like to store all of my data on these two drives, not really worried about HD failure because I backup very often to a NAS, just want to get teh most out of these drives and the 36GB raptor is kinda small now a days.

Judas · Jan 16, 2007, 08:28 PM

Well the silicon image controllers seem to performance quite nicely, a few people have had a few issues with the drivers, but if you do a little searching around, you can find out what works and what doesn't, and silicon appears to be releasing quite a few driver revisions quite frequently.

But all the onboard silicon image controllers have usually only had one port internally and one externally (usually subbed eSata). You probably have 2 internal ones then hey?

RAID 0+1 is for speed and fault talorance.

Basically you have (i've seen this work) either 3 hardrives, 2 with a combined size that would = the size of the 3rd. So you get the performance of the 2 hd's in raid 0 while maintaining stability and reliability by having the 3rd mirror the total of the 2 others. But i find this not as fast as raid 0 by itself (obvious).

A well, if i were to go with fault tolerance at all, i'd go Raid 5.

**temeteus82** · Jan 16, 2007, 10:11 PM

RAID 10 need 4x identical drives ...

H3X4D3C1M4L · Jan 18, 2007, 01:09 AM

For fault tolerance and speed, RAID-5 is simply unbeatable. 0+1 is just a waste, you get more space out of the RAID-5 setup and better recoverability I think.

The RAID-0 would be faster than the Raptor and also more spacious. I mean so what the access latency is lower, unless you're running server applications and you tried them on the RAID one then yes maybe the Rap would be faster but even still who really does that on a home computer?

Wizzard005 · Jan 19, 2007, 01:21 AM

Well,

I have my two drives installed and running in Raid 0 . But i have a question, I decided to use teh nvidia controller and its working well, no errors just I did the following:

2 x 400GB disks = Raid 0 = Stripped

Now in windows it says I have 800GB of diskspace? I though when you stripe two drives it would only be 400GB usable?

Again, in the nvidia raid it says I have Raid 0 Stripped.. My roommate who has a Dell XPS did raid 0 too and he has 2 x 36GB drives , now he has 86GB of space on the c drive...

Am i missing something here?

Lelisevis · Jan 19, 2007, 01:53 AM

Raid in games

Loading times for Farcry

Two Raptors in Raid 0 load time 40.6 secs
One Raptor on it's lonesome 39.7

If two raptors at 10,000k are slower loading a game then one raptor, two 7200k drives are going to stand no chance.

Raid makes no difference at all in a gaming environment. At most fractions of a second.

Wizzard005 · Jan 19, 2007, 01:59 AM

Not sure about that game listed above, but i notice a big difference in WoW and windows system load time / install time on apps.

Its way faster, way i mean windows used to take 25secs to load, now it flashes the windows screen and then boom into windows , maybe 20secs flat from turning on the PC...

H3X4D3C1M4L · Jan 19, 2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzard005

Well,

I have my two drives installed and running in Raid 0 . But i have a question, I decided to use teh nvidia controller and its working well, no errors just I did the following:

2 x 400GB disks = Raid 0 = Stripped

Now in windows it says I have 800GB of diskspace? I though when you stripe two drives it would only be 400GB usable?

Again, in the nvidia raid it says I have Raid 0 Stripped.. My roommate who has a Dell XPS did raid 0 too and he has 2 x 36GB drives , now he has 86GB of space on the c drive...

Am i missing something here?

1. Striping is putting them together so data is striped so you get the drive capacties added together for space, mirroring is the halving of space between two drives.
2. How do you multiply 36 by 2 and get 84?

I think you mean 72 (which is ~68 when converted to base 2 gigabytes)

Jan 16, 2007, 07:33 PM	#1
Wizzard005 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	What is faster 2 WD 7200RPM 16MB cach 400GB in Raid 0 or 1 WD 10k 36GB HD? Hey all, This is my first post. I have a simple question. I have a Very nice gaming Rig setup, but i also use it for work too. Here are my specs Right now: AMD 3500 AM2 @ 2.6Ghz ASUS MB with nvidia 590 chipset 2GB DDR2 2 x eVAG 8800's GTS PCI 2 x 16x Sounblaster Xtreme Music 5.1 Home Theature Reciver with Studio Monitors I have atm 1 x 36GB Wester Digital 10k RPM HD, but just ordered 2 400GB WD 16MB cach HD's from Frys. I was thinking of raid 0 ing them, I know i have to se the sizes to 160GB... Just wondering that is better, I dont like storing my data on the same drive, so if i ever have a crash I am sol......

Jan 16, 2007, 07:53 PM	#4
CDsDontBurn Lurking DriverHeaven Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 22,779 Rep Power: 235 System Specs	the RAID 0, hands down. i've got two 7200RPM 80Gb 8Mb Cache Seagates in RAID 0, and they outperform my single 36Gb raptor . __________________ Her First Day \| A year later

Jan 16, 2007, 07:56 PM	#6
CDsDontBurn Lurking DriverHeaven Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 22,779 Rep Power: 235 System Specs	well, i was referring to the data transfer bandwith, not latency timing. my raptor still does outperform my RAID set up there, yes. __________________ Her First Day \| A year later

Jan 16, 2007, 08:03 PM	Thread Starter #7
Wizzard005 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	I wasnt going to use the nvidia Raid, MB also has the Silicon Image 3132 Raid 0, 1, I am useing the ASUS M2N32-SLI What is Raid 0+1? I would like to store all of my data on these two drives, not really worried about HD failure because I backup very often to a NAS, just want to get teh most out of these drives and the 36GB raptor is kinda small now a days.

Jan 18, 2007, 01:09 AM	#10
H3X4D3C1M4L DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,794 Rep Power: 0	For fault tolerance and speed, RAID-5 is simply unbeatable. 0+1 is just a waste, you get more space out of the RAID-5 setup and better recoverability I think. The RAID-0 would be faster than the Raptor and also more spacious. I mean so what the access latency is lower, unless you're running server applications and you tried them on the RAID one then yes maybe the Rap would be faster but even still who really does that on a home computer?

Jan 19, 2007, 01:21 AM	Thread Starter #11
Wizzard005 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	Well, I have my two drives installed and running in Raid 0 . But i have a question, I decided to use teh nvidia controller and its working well, no errors just I did the following: 2 x 400GB disks = Raid 0 = Stripped Now in windows it says I have 800GB of diskspace? I though when you stripe two drives it would only be 400GB usable? Again, in the nvidia raid it says I have Raid 0 Stripped.. My roommate who has a Dell XPS did raid 0 too and he has 2 x 36GB drives , now he has 86GB of space on the c drive... Am i missing something here?

Jan 19, 2007, 01:53 AM	#12
Lelisevis Howlin at the moon Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,663 Rep Power: 0	Raid in games Loading times for Farcry Two Raptors in Raid 0 load time 40.6 secs One Raptor on it's lonesome 39.7 If two raptors at 10,000k are slower loading a game then one raptor, two 7200k drives are going to stand no chance. Raid makes no difference at all in a gaming environment. At most fractions of a second.

Jan 19, 2007, 01:59 AM	Thread Starter #13
Wizzard005 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	Not sure about that game listed above, but i notice a big difference in WoW and windows system load time / install time on apps. Its way faster, way i mean windows used to take 25secs to load, now it flashes the windows screen and then boom into windows , maybe 20secs flat from turning on the PC...