RAID 0 or another hard drive?

[shady86]

I'm currently using only one Seagate 7200.9 300GB. My HDD is running all the time because of bit torrent. I feel it's quite slow and I planned to get another driver. So my options are :

1) Get another 7200.9 300GB and set up RAID 0 and RAID1. RAID 0 for OS/games RAID 1 for files/BTorrent.

2) Get a WD2500KS 250GB and use it as OS/games drive. Seagate for files/torrent.

3) Any other single driver which is cheap and offers good performance. eg, 7200rpm, 16MB cache.

The problem with my 7200.9 now is it's quite noisy even at minimal activity. Since I'm sleeping near my PC, I prefer a quiet PC. At the same time I want good performance so thinking of getting another drive. I'm using a Thermaltake Soprano case. P5LD2 mobo with 930D.

[unhappy_mage]

2) would be my choice.

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/150072.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&tm=33&id=150072)http://www.hardfolding.com/utag1.php/mem/428/1.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=36&id=428&type=1)

[shady86]

2) would be my choice.

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/150072.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&tm=33&id=150072)http://www.hardfolding.com/utag1.php/mem/428/1.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=36&id=428&type=1)

Can you tell my why? Will it be faster?

[drizzt81]

the WD KS series is widely regardes as being a fast single-user disk. Faster than the .9 series in most cases: SR Comparison (http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/suite_v4.php?typeID=10&testbedID=4&osID=6&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=285&devID_1=295&devID_2=314&devCnt=3). Note that I have included the Seagate 500GB and 250GB versions, your drive should be somewhere in between. Seeing that the KS wins almost every single-user benchmark by a nice margin (when compared to the 250 GB version), it is believed that the WD makes a better single-user drive.

[shady86]

If I get another 7200.9 and set up RAID 0, wouldn't it be faster?

[drizzt81]

If I get another 7200.9 and set up RAID 0, wouldn't it be faster?
no. Bittorrent's profile is very likely a lot of small writes to disk, not a long sequential transfer. Since RAID-0 does nothing but degrade seek time, it is quite likely that two independent drives would be much better suited for this application. You can have your BT downloads on one disk and run your programs from a separate one.

[shady86]

no. Bittorrent's profile is very likely a lot of small writes to disk, not a long sequential transfer. Since RAID-0 does nothing but degrade seek time, it is quite likely that two independent drives would be much better suited for this application. You can have your BT downloads on one disk and run your programs from a separate one.

Thanks for your advice. Besides running Bittorrent in background, I do multitask like CD-burning, media conversion and games. I experienced low disk buffer when burning DVD and using Bittorrent at the same time especially when I get high download speed. Will I get better performance when running game on one hard disk and bittorrent on another hard disk or from a RAID0 pair of harddisk? Lets put it this way :

All programs running on the same time.

1) HDD1 - OS/game ; HDD2 - Bittorrent and DVD-burning/Bittorrent and video conversion(Video conversion from HDD2 to either HDD1 or HDD2)

2) RAID0(2 HDD) - OS/game, Bittorrent and DVD-burning/video conversion

Does Windows boot time, game loading time, application speed benefits from RAID0? My 7200.9 can read average 60+MB/s.

[drizzt81]

1) > 2)

[shady86]

For single drive, should I get 2500KS or 7200.10 250GB?

[drizzt81]

I would get the WD, however this is not founded on anything other than the fact that i have heard many good things about the KS series. However, given that the Seagate has a 5 yr warranty and may be outperforming the KS (I do not know), it is a hard choice. If 5-yr warranty is important to you, get the seagate.