Justgetmein
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 148
I'm thinking of buying a nice big fast hard drive but i don't know if i need to go Raid ... better yet what does it mean to have a Raid setup or have a bigger cache.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
16 mb or Raid?
- Thread starter Justgetmein
- Start date
TheDoucheMan
Washed free of idiocy.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 0
Just get 1 or 2 large drives and run them separately. Raid is not worth the trouble IMHO.
Justgetmein
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 148
Well i use it for games, movies, anime, music, etc.. all the normal stuff but i do download a lot of stuff so i would need at least 200gb.
This is gonna be a new rig so if i need like a special mobo then i would get it and i'm thinking about this lil hardrive WD2005JS
the thing is I don't really know that Raid and more cache does -_-, maybe you can tell me the simple version the little i know it meens that is faster thats all i know
This is gonna be a new rig so if i need like a special mobo then i would get it and i'm thinking about this lil hardrive WD2005JS
the thing is I don't really know that Raid and more cache does -_-, maybe you can tell me the simple version the little i know it meens that is faster thats all i know
TheDoucheMan
Washed free of idiocy.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 0
Justgetmein said:
Basically both of them come down to a minor performance increase in some cases. I can't remember which is better in which situations.
The disadvantages tell the tale for me. For a 16mb cache drive, you pay a little more for it. For raid 0 there are setup issues (floppies during installation), and the risk of data loss is twice that of a single drive (for a 2 drive stripe). If one drive fails you loose all the data.
More Cache increases the speed of an individual harddrive in certain circumstances by allowing it to "cache" data it will need soon in local RAM, thus speeding up access to the cached data considerably.
RAID involves getting multiple harddrives to work together for various purposes. I will give a simple explanation of the most common ones supported in hardware on motherboards and inexpensive RAID cards....
RAID 0 allows you to merge 2 or more harddrives together so they appear as one to your PC (called "Striping", plural of STRIPE, not STRIP BTW.). This has two benefits, first you get a single "Double sized" harddrive (which some don't consider a benefit, and it's triple, or quadruple size if you have 3 or 4 harddrives respectively), and you also get a faster harddrive because half (or 1/3rd, or 1/4) of the data you are reading will be coming from each drive, thus cutting the time to access it down considerably. The downside is that if ANY drive fails you lose all data on all the drives.
RAID 1 allows you to "Mirror" a drive. You use 2 drives, and all data gets written too both. So if one ever breaks the other one keeps write on working. The downside is that you lose half your harddrive space, and it's not any faster really.
RAID 0+1 typically involves 4 drives. First the drives are paired up and striped, then the striped pairs are Mirrored. So you still lose half your size (4x200GB becomes One 400GB drive), but you do gain some speed, and much better protection against data loss.
RAID 5 is the final most common type. RAID 5 is essentially RAID 0 with a special "data protection" scheme in place to help avoid data loss. The scheme is hard to explain in simple terms, so I will just tell you what you need to implement it, and the end benefit. You must have 3 disks or more to implement RAID 5. Once it's up and running you lose 1 disk worth of space (So if you had 4x200GB of disks you would effectively end up with a single 600GB drive), but you gain increases speed. You also can then lose 1 (and only 1)drive, and still lose NO data. If one drive fails then the missing data is rebuilt by all the other drives, who have been storing a little data from each drive this entire time. You will need to replace the broken drive as soon as possible to get your protection back in place, but it's nice to know you can lose 1 drive without worries. There is one drawback to RAID 5, if your drives are not all the same size then you don't get to use all the space on each drive. For instance, if you had 3x200GB, and 1X160GB, in a RAID 5 Array, then you would actually end up with 3x160GB=480GB, not 600GB like in the earlier example. And if that smallest drive was 20GB then you would only have 3x20GB=60GB. So having the same size is important in RAID 5.
In ALL these cases you must either have a RAID controller card in your PC that supports the level of RAID you want (PCI slot, or built into Motherboard typically), or you can set it up in your OS (For most OS's). However, running more than a 2 disk RAID 0 or RAID 1 setup can slow your PC down a bit, so it's not recommended unless you have no other choice.
Harddrives that specifically mention RAID usually do so because they have extra buffering to help avoid the performance loss, and potential damage, that comes from having lots of madly spinning and vibrating devices mounted so close together. So unless you are planning on a large multi-disk RAID Array, go for more Cache.
RAID involves getting multiple harddrives to work together for various purposes. I will give a simple explanation of the most common ones supported in hardware on motherboards and inexpensive RAID cards....
RAID 0 allows you to merge 2 or more harddrives together so they appear as one to your PC (called "Striping", plural of STRIPE, not STRIP BTW.). This has two benefits, first you get a single "Double sized" harddrive (which some don't consider a benefit, and it's triple, or quadruple size if you have 3 or 4 harddrives respectively), and you also get a faster harddrive because half (or 1/3rd, or 1/4) of the data you are reading will be coming from each drive, thus cutting the time to access it down considerably. The downside is that if ANY drive fails you lose all data on all the drives.
RAID 1 allows you to "Mirror" a drive. You use 2 drives, and all data gets written too both. So if one ever breaks the other one keeps write on working. The downside is that you lose half your harddrive space, and it's not any faster really.
RAID 0+1 typically involves 4 drives. First the drives are paired up and striped, then the striped pairs are Mirrored. So you still lose half your size (4x200GB becomes One 400GB drive), but you do gain some speed, and much better protection against data loss.
RAID 5 is the final most common type. RAID 5 is essentially RAID 0 with a special "data protection" scheme in place to help avoid data loss. The scheme is hard to explain in simple terms, so I will just tell you what you need to implement it, and the end benefit. You must have 3 disks or more to implement RAID 5. Once it's up and running you lose 1 disk worth of space (So if you had 4x200GB of disks you would effectively end up with a single 600GB drive), but you gain increases speed. You also can then lose 1 (and only 1)drive, and still lose NO data. If one drive fails then the missing data is rebuilt by all the other drives, who have been storing a little data from each drive this entire time. You will need to replace the broken drive as soon as possible to get your protection back in place, but it's nice to know you can lose 1 drive without worries. There is one drawback to RAID 5, if your drives are not all the same size then you don't get to use all the space on each drive. For instance, if you had 3x200GB, and 1X160GB, in a RAID 5 Array, then you would actually end up with 3x160GB=480GB, not 600GB like in the earlier example. And if that smallest drive was 20GB then you would only have 3x20GB=60GB. So having the same size is important in RAID 5.
In ALL these cases you must either have a RAID controller card in your PC that supports the level of RAID you want (PCI slot, or built into Motherboard typically), or you can set it up in your OS (For most OS's). However, running more than a 2 disk RAID 0 or RAID 1 setup can slow your PC down a bit, so it's not recommended unless you have no other choice.
Harddrives that specifically mention RAID usually do so because they have extra buffering to help avoid the performance loss, and potential damage, that comes from having lots of madly spinning and vibrating devices mounted so close together. So unless you are planning on a large multi-disk RAID Array, go for more Cache.
Anarchist4000
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,659
One thing you might want to consider is a single drive plus a raid setup. It sort of depends on how much storage space you're needing but consider something like the following.
Single Raptor - used for OS/programs/games
Raid5 - used for storing bulk files(music, video, pictures?)
Use as many drives as you really feel necessary for the Raid5 setup. I suggest Raid5 for the simple fact that if one of the drives dies the data is still somewhat intact. The OS, games, programs can easily be reinstalled and the drive replaced. Replacing over 100GB of files can be a much more involved process. And if one drive dies taking the array offline until you get a replacement isn't a huge issue.
I've been using a pair of seperate 10k SCSI drives in my system for a while now with a SATA raid setup for storing bulk files. Being able to defragment 3 drives at once and still use the system effectively is rather nice. That and the only place RAID really shows a performance benefit is when doing large file transfers of moving large chunks of data which is what video/audio files typically are.
Not to mention I can ghost copies of the other drives onto the RAID array if I want to play around with things a bit.
Single Raptor - used for OS/programs/games
Raid5 - used for storing bulk files(music, video, pictures?)
Use as many drives as you really feel necessary for the Raid5 setup. I suggest Raid5 for the simple fact that if one of the drives dies the data is still somewhat intact. The OS, games, programs can easily be reinstalled and the drive replaced. Replacing over 100GB of files can be a much more involved process. And if one drive dies taking the array offline until you get a replacement isn't a huge issue.
I've been using a pair of seperate 10k SCSI drives in my system for a while now with a SATA raid setup for storing bulk files. Being able to defragment 3 drives at once and still use the system effectively is rather nice. That and the only place RAID really shows a performance benefit is when doing large file transfers of moving large chunks of data which is what video/audio files typically are.
Not to mention I can ghost copies of the other drives onto the RAID array if I want to play around with things a bit.
DougLite said:Another convert?Not beating up on you personally Bee, but I remember this post. Raptors (73GB+) are the real deal
yup another converter...
This 74gb raptor is unbelivealy fast. The OS pops to desktop when boot before I can even open my beer on gaming night. My load time in Bf2 are about the same, but the game itself seems to start faster (desktop to Bf2 menu)
ohh yea, when I reinstall windows I normally restore a 42gb backup file to my documents folder (c:/), and a 90gb file to my files drive (d:/). The 90gb file was restored to a new 16mb cache WD 200Gb SATA2, and the 42gb file was restored to my Raptor. I didnt time the largers file, but the 42gb file only took 32mins to restore, where is took in the range of 50-70 mins when resotreing it to my old RAID array depending on cluster size.. thats jsut amazing!
So far best thing about singal drive has to be "kicking the floppy drive out the window" for sure.
Justgetmein
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 148
Anyway i choose to go with the WD the one from the link, Raid seems like such a pain on the butt and the raptor well 150 gb is kinda small well for me.
Wow thanks for all the information guys, i'm still surprised that everyone is so helpful and nice ... it's an internet miracle!!!.
Wow thanks for all the information guys, i'm still surprised that everyone is so helpful and nice ... it's an internet miracle!!!.
Justgetmein
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 148
one last thing should I buy a bigger cache or sacrafice it for more storage?
is cache really a big deal?
is cache really a big deal?
I would recommend your OS drive be the fastest single drive you can afford, and have a second larger/slower drive for storage. All depends on your budget. Remember you can always add storage drive(s) later with very little effort. Changing the OS drive isn't quite as easy, but also very doable.Justgetmein said:
Good luck.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,223
Anarchist4000 said:
Raid 5 is a "little" over kill for most people not runnin a small buisness or mission critical systems.
i dont think the benefit of RAID0 vs the potential increased points of failure (2 harddrives + controller) are worth the "possible" performanace gain of moving large files - smaller, quick acess to files is actually slow on raid0 - if you do alot of large file transfers and such - RAID0 can be beneficial - but many single drives these day are more then adequate.
I also have some SCSI in a small system i tossed together - a adaptec 68pin ULTRA160 controller with 32mb of ram (PCI) with 2 8g SCSI drives - one 10k the other 15k RPM - loud as hell but when windows boots up with 4 passes of the bar and installing games or loading them flies - i can live with the noise!