raptor or raid0 ?

**ripken204** · 01-31-2006, 05:37 PM

im not sure what to do. should i get a 74gig raptor or raid0 with 2x80gig hitachi sataII drives ? i will have another large hdd for backing up stuff so thats not an issue.

how much of a difference in random access times do you guys see between a raptor and raid0?

**JoeBar** · 02-05-2006, 03:44 AM

In my opinion a raid 0 config would be a better solution than any single drive.
U can raid 2 36.7 raptors for nearly the price of a single 74gb one and better performance than the hitachi config.

**t024484** · 02-05-2006, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBar

In my opinion a raid 0 config would be a better solution than any single drive.
U can raid 2 36.7 raptors for nearly the price of a single 74gb one and better performance than the hitachi config.

That's it. Coudn't agree more.

**zicl** · 02-05-2006, 06:29 AM

i agree i have 2 36gig raptors in RAID0, best setup i have ever had!!

**TheDude** · 02-05-2006, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBar

In my opinion a raid 0 config would be a better solution than any single drive.
U can raid 2 36.7 raptors for nearly the price of a single 74gb one and better performance than the hitachi config.

Yep, JoeBar is right on the $.

**ripken204** · 02-05-2006, 07:10 AM

the lowest price for a 36gig raptor ive seen is ~100$ and a 74gig raptor is ~150$ ....

i am thinking if i should get 3x80 hitachi sataII drives in raid0 and 1 200gig or more backup drive

**aja** · 02-05-2006, 01:57 PM

a raid 0 configuration puts more strain on the cpu, i would go for a single raptor!

edit: nevermind!go for raid 0

**nn_step** · 02-05-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by aja

a raid 0 configuration puts more strain on the cpu, i would go for a single raptor!

Dude I would like to see where you heard that bull

Raid0 all the way..(maybe a nice Controller card while your at it)

**t024484** · 02-06-2006, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by nn_step

Dude I would like to see where you heard that bull

Raid0 all the way..(maybe a nice Controller card while your at it)

I tried both.
Raid 0 is the way to go.

**Daveb2012** · 02-06-2006, 01:47 AM

I am curious about this too, for those who have used it. How much of a difference can you see between a single sata 7200rpm HD vs say a raid 0 w/ 2 raptor sata drives? I was thinking maybe loading maps in BF2 I would notice a difference, boot up and shut down times. any thing else? and how much of an improvement too, its an expensive upgrade for minimal results I think.

**aja** · 02-06-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by nn_step

Dude I would like to see where you heard that bull

Raid0 all the way..(maybe a nice Controller card while your at it)

sorry!
I miss-qouted someone, a quad zeon server guy said something about putting strain on the available chipset bandwidth, thereby denying some bandwidth to the cpu, making it work under greater pressure, or something like that....

I dont know....

**nn_step** · 02-06-2006, 10:00 AM

Might I suggest you edit your first post so that people don't actually pay attention to that bull.. Thank you

**ripken204** · 02-06-2006, 02:24 PM

if it did strain it, which i also dont think that it does, then i think my opteron 170 would definetly be able to handle it

so i guess you all agree to getting raid? 3x80gig hitachi sataII

**axion** · 02-06-2006, 03:02 PM

I thought everyone was agreeing to RAID the 36gb raptors

**nn_step** · 02-06-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by ripken204

if it did strain it, which i also dont think that it does, then i think my opteron 170 would definetly be able to handle it

so i guess you all agree to getting raid? 3x80gig hitachi sataII

Sounds good to me.. any three 7.2K drives in Raid0 will beat any 10k drive not raided

**tonyl** · 02-07-2006, 04:50 PM

I'll choose raptor 74GB, random access time is much lower. Game loading time is less. If you can, 2 raptor raid0 is best. I tried 2 74gb raptor raid0, couldn't feel difference with sigle 74gb raptor.

**OmegaMerc** · 02-07-2006, 04:59 PM

102$ gets you 250gb wd sata II 16mb cache off of ZZF.

**SamHughe** · 02-07-2006, 11:04 PM

Don't mean to steal the thread but I have a question too. Currently I'm using 4 36.7GB raptors on raid=0. I also have 2 15K 36.7gb Hitachi SCSI drives with 16mb cache and LSI scsi 320 controller. Which setup would be faster?

**nn_step** · 02-07-2006, 11:20 PM

well the Deskstars have a 3.3ms write/Read time when raid0 should be something close to 1.65ms
on the other hand the Raptors have a 5.2ms write/read time when in raid0 should be something close to 1.3ms
which is a theoretical difference of just 0.35ms and the bandwidth comparison has everything to do with how they are hooked up.. Ultimately I would go for the SCSI because I find it easier to maintain and use but for the normal the differences would be marginally different and vary per their tastes

**kozietulski** · 02-10-2006, 03:44 AM

Hi all. lurking here for long time.

Originally Posted by nn_step

well the Deskstars have a 3.3ms access time when raid0 should be something close to 1.65ms
on the other hand the Raptors have a 5.2ms access time when in raid0 should be something close to 1.3ms...

Could you please explain your logic behind above comments? It may be that i just misunderstood you but if you really suggesting access time is getting significantly better by RAIDing drives then it is imho rather big misconception which should not be left uncorrected in forum of as good reputation as this one.

Afaik for typical application/hardware combinations access time is (just slightly) worser in RAID0 then for single drive of given type. Either that or my knowledge regarding hdd/raid issues is non existing

Cheers.

**Twin** · 02-10-2006, 05:18 AM

I'm about raid0'ing raptor 150gbs, just ordered them.
I hope it rocks otherwise I'll bite myself and throw away my creditcard.

**nn_step** · 02-10-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by kozietulski

Hi all. lurking here for long time.
Could you please explain your logic behind above comments? It may be that i just misunderstood you but if you really suggesting access time is getting significantly better by RAIDing drives then it is imho rather big misconception which should not be left uncorrected in forum of as good reputation as this one.

Afaik for typical application/hardware combinations access time is (just slightly) worser in RAID0 then for single drive of given type. Either that or my knowledge regarding hdd/raid issues is non existing

Cheers.

You might be right about Access time.. but then again Access latency doesn't mean anything when are talking about write/Read latency (time it takes to write/read something to the drive) which cuts in half if you double the number of Read/Write heads.. Which also is a function of bandwidth.. which Adds as you add drives in Raid0.. Meh I'll fix original post...

**Adamantine** · 02-19-2006, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by nn_step

You might be right about Access time.. but then again Access latency doesn't mean anything when are talking about write/Read latency (time it takes to write/read something to the drive) which cuts in half if you double the number of Read/Write heads.. Which also is a function of bandwidth.. which Adds as you add drives in Raid0.. Meh I'll fix original post...

The number of read/write heads has a negible effect on read/write latency. Doubling the number of read/write heads won't cut the access latency in half, otherwise there would be a noticeable difference between a single platter 7k250 and a 5 platter 7k500 in access latency, which there is pretty much none. The 7k500 does have a slightly higher sequential sustained transfer rate, but that doesn't affect how quickly the drive can begin a read or write. For the most part, HDD latency is only affected by the rotational speed, which in turn has a significant part in how quickly the actuator arm can get into position. In a RAID array, the access latency will be nearly identical as when they configured as a single drive.

In a typical single user, low I/O queue depth system, RAID 0 only gives a performance increase in sequential sustained transfer rates, not access latency. A single user system simply doesn't have a high enough I/O queue depth to take advantage of a RAID 0 array.

You're almost always better off using a single Raptor X/150 than two 74GB Raptor in RAID 0 as you get similar performance without doubling the risk of drive failure while remaining at nearly the same cost.

**DriveEuro** · 02-19-2006, 10:23 AM

Anyone care to post screens as proof that 2x36gb raptors are quicker? Fine, I will.

First pic is the 2x80gb Hitachis... 300+mb/s
Second is 2x36gb raptors.. a measly 190mb/s
Third is 3x80gb hitachis.....
Fourth is 4x80gb hitachis....

Now tell me... which is better for a game? Burst speed or average read?

This is all coming from myself who once owned a pair of 36gb Raptors. I now own 3x80gb Hitachis... you couldn't even pay me to use the newest Raptors over what I already have.

**IFMU** · 02-19-2006, 03:11 PM

Ironiclly, overclockers had a story on this just a couple days ago.

OC Article with screenshots on the details this person received on trying out both options.

Thread: raptor or raid0 ?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

raptor or raid0 ?

access time confusion?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions