What is faster? 400GB vs 2 merged 200GB

  • blizzy
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • blizzy
  • Posts: 115

Post 3+ Months Ago

What is faster?
that 400 GB S ATA
or, 2 200 GB S ATA merged into 1? (i forgot the proper term for it)
For a long time I've been thinking that those merged drives seek and run faster than a normal one. Can anyone clarify this?
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • grinch2171
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6809
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Post 3+ Months Ago

What you are talking about is RAID 0. I currently run this with two 120GB hard drives. RAID 0 is supposed to increase speed and performance and I will admit my benchmarks for my hard drives are faster then a single drive.
  • DuckIT
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 155
  • Loc: London, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

RAID 0 allows faster read / write operations due to the fact that it can read / write from 2 drives at once. For this though you get a slight increase in failure rates due to the act that if one drive fails you loose the lot (the more drives involved the more chance of a drive failing!)

S
  • blizzy
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • blizzy
  • Posts: 115

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yeah, that's the main draw back of RAID 0.
But if you look at the price of hard drives right now, 2 200GB would probably cost around $150-170 each (in the U.S. ), and the new 400GB that we've been talking about would probably cost no less than $350.
Pricewise, plus the benefits from it, people should consider using RAID 0 more often.
  • grinch2171
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6809
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Post 3+ Months Ago

You could use RAID 5 as an alternative but you need 3 hard drives. RAID 5 gives you the same performance increase as RAID 0 but the third hard drive becomes the back up in case one of the other 2 fail.
  • ShEDeViL
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 216

Post 3+ Months Ago

Here is a really useful link if you're wondernig about different raid arrays.

http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html
  • Vladdrac
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2136
  • Loc: Louisville, Ky

Post 3+ Months Ago

out of curiosity, why are you wanting your hard drive to be faster?

or are you just wondering?
  • blizzy
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • blizzy
  • Posts: 115

Post 3+ Months Ago

I was wondering mostly. What i don't get is (although there's a risk of losing data), why people woudn't go for a cheaper but faster solution.

But if i use it, it won't be for my computer but for a few servers for an organization @ school.
  • Vladdrac
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2136
  • Loc: Louisville, Ky

Post 3+ Months Ago

raid 0 is good for servers, but you definately want to have back up servers
  • ShEDeViL
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 216

Post 3+ Months Ago

Personally I lost a hard drive once and it sucked. So I plan on setting up a SATA Raid 1 setup soon. After my past experience, I would rather sacrifice a few seconds for the security of not losing my data.
  • Vladdrac
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2136
  • Loc: Louisville, Ky

Post 3+ Months Ago

yeah, really I am fine with 7200...I mean it takes a little longer to load stuff...but I doubt that I would even save a whole minute out of the day if I set up raid 0. Or even if I went with SATA.

For me it isn't practical...for corparate servers that speed is definately needed
  • blizzy
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • blizzy
  • Posts: 115

Post 3+ Months Ago

that's true.
I think RAID 5 might be a better alternative.

For home use, personally, i'd rather have 2 separate 200GB than 1 400GB (for example), but that's just me.
  • DuckIT
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 155
  • Loc: London, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yeah i'd use RAID 0 no probs at home. The slight increase in failure rate is very small so I wouldnt be bothered about that and it shouldnt be a problem if you backup frequently.

Servers though I wouldnt touch RAID 0 with a barge pole! Either RAID 1 or RAID 3/5 or higher is the way to go for mission critical data. They are both slightly slower than RAID 0 for writing but I don't think theres much in it (RAID 0 each piece of info has to be written to both drives hence slowdown, RAID 3/5 the parity info has to be written for each write so slight slow down there). Don't believe you get any speed drop in reading though on 3/5.

S

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 13 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.