2 blacks or 1 Raptor

T

ToddW2

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,021
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Raptors are going the way of the dodo. Get Blacks, wait til SSDs are $1/Gig (later this year perhaps).
 
Also debating between hardware raid to do this or onboard software raid.
 
I`m thinking 3 should def. be faster than a raptor.

Anyone done this and confirm ???
 
I've got 2 x 640 Blacks (in sig rig) and it is plenty fast for me.

This question has come up before and the consensus is for the money 2 (or 3 if you are so inclined) x Blacks is the better way to go. This is the reason I did it :D

I just setup a second RAID 0 pair in my wife's rig for CS4 and she's lovin' it. Because there is always concern of failure, I setup a 1.5TB HDD in that same rig for dedicated backup (runs behind the scene every night). 2 x Blacks and the 1.5TB HDD was still cheaper than the one Raptor
 
How do I find out how many drives I can put on RAID1 array ?
My motherboard = Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R

I was thinking 3x500gb Raid 1 and then like you another 500gb for backup.
I already have 1TB NAS that is RAIDed too for real backup of my important stuff :D
 
2 x WD 640GB Black = 2 x 75 = 150

300GB WD Velociraptor 200
150GB WD Velociraptor 150

Option 2
1 x Intel x25-V = 99-125 (find deal for cheaper price)
1 x 500GB Blue = 51-57 (find deal for cheaper) (for storage)
Total = between 150 - 182

For normal OS/APP random access performance, the SSD likely better most of the time. For example,
I have old 73GB 15K SAS drive single user single IO-queue random raw test 165 seeks/sec 6.x ms seek
The Intel SSD is in the range of thousands seek/sec. 0.1ms seek
 
Last edited:
RAID1 is mirror. You will not get any additonal performance.

RAID0 is striped and this is where you'll get performance.

As for max number of drives in a RAID0, you'll have to wait on someone better able to answer that question. There is a point of diminishing return.
 
capreppy said:
RAID1 is mirror. You will not get any additonal performance.

RAID0 is striped and this is where you'll get performance.

As for max number of drives in a RAID0, you'll have to wait on someone better able to answer that question. There is a point of diminishing return.
Click to expand...

That was a typo, I meant 0 for my desktop, striped.
 
lightp2 said:
2 x WD 640GB Black = 2 x 75 = 150

300GB WD Velociraptor 200
150GB WD Velociraptor 150

Option 2
1 x Intel x25-V = 99-125 (find deal for cheaper price)
1 x 500GB Blue = 51-57 (find deal for cheaper) (for storage)
Total = between 150 - 182
Click to expand...

In my lappy (also in sig), I am doing something very similar.

Intel X25 160GB for primary & 500GB for storage.

Reads are great, but writes, not so much. If you have a need for fast writes as well as reads, doing 2 blacks is the better way to go.

In addition, I've short stroked my 2 x 640's. 300GB in first partition for OS & apps and 900 for storage. I obviously don't get SSD speeds in the first partition, but it is plenty fast and lots of space. The $99 Intel SSD is going to get you 40GB. Space for OS and Apps will be limited.
 
Max number of drives in RAID(0) depends on the controller. Most controllers have a max of something like 24 drives in RAID, but there are some gnarly expensive controllers out there that can handle something like 64 I believe. I already Googled this, so I'm just going by best memory.
 
If the drives actually performed at over 300MByte/sec (3GBit), then there would be a reason to have 6GBit SATA.
 
I ordered up 4x WD6401AALS.

3 x RAID0
1 x Backup Drive where I`ll move some files I want to keep safe.

I have my RAID1 NAS for off-computer backup too, and use Dropbox too.

Should be rocking new system :D
 
Only problem with those drives is latency. Latency is slightly additive in RAID0.

Personally I would have gone with the single raptor for speedy performance.
 
8.3ms vs 9.4ms is that what you are referring too?

The read/write speed would make up for that access speed considering it's 2x as fast.
 
@ToddW2,

Hi I respect your decision and normally would not go further. In this particular, I just share my experience (not asking other to do)

I am typing this post on a 4-disks Linux RAID-10 WD-Blue. Reasonable Max Write 260-275MB/sec Total disk cost < USD-200. setup chosen due to diskspace, VM-OS-testing(write-heavy). On a system low-level stats during MD array sync, read goes to max of 465MB/sec. Normal usage read max around 220-240MB/sec.

For personal use, I would choose X25-V inexpensive-deal + 2xSATA RAID-0 (mechanical disks) for local write heavy temp file location. You have NAS ready so can save important files final copies there.

Your usage pattern is the key. Example, if you are doing heavy video editing and perform heavy duty writes which will wear down the inexpensive SSD. Or the 2-disk RAID-0 still not able to meet write demands (especially for HD video editing focus setup)
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the feedback, and personal experiences you can share.

I am on my pc from 8-10 hours a day working with a bunch of files from html to photoshop, etc as I am website developer.

As a hobby I also do photography so I am constantly importing gigs of pics, sorting, re-sizing, re-organizing, deleting, and then repeating every couple days. Video editing is done, but maybe on a monthly basis.. it may go up as I develop some sites around this.

Once SSD reliability/longevity to cost ratio comes down I`ll be all ahead on that. However, having to spend a day or two every few months to either warranty, re-install, etc would just suck for me, and I don't think they are where I want to be. My workstations last about 1.75 to 2.5 years w/out component replacement running 24/7... (now only about 15hrs/day) but I still use them a lot, and to me a SSD isn't in this arena yet. Maybe I`m wrong, but only marginally... in the future I have high hopes for them :)
 
Accesstimes 11.9, so for the 3 you are probably looking at around 20ms actual latency.

Typically with this setup once you get going its brutal fast, but random home usage pattern won't saturate the queue enough to really deliver on the speed. To really bring out the best in these they need to be ready to be fed one access after another.

I had 4 of the 1 TB version in RAID0 for my array (I'm a photographer) and browsing picture files was slower than a single disk! (large transfers were like 400MB/sec tho)

Couldn't take it anymore and switched to a pair of raptors in RAID0, now everything is awesome!

So it really depends on how you plan on using them, but typically home use style will get more benefit from the raptor
 
staticlag said:
Accesstimes 11.9, so for the 3 you are probably looking at around 20ms actual latency.

Typically with this setup once you get going its brutal fast, but random home usage pattern won't saturate the queue enough to really deliver on the speed. To really bring out the best in these they need to be ready to be fed one access after another.

I had 4 of the 1 TB version in RAID0 for my array (I'm a photographer) and browsing picture files was slower than a single disk! (large transfers were like 400MB/sec tho)

Couldn't take it anymore and switched to a pair of raptors in RAID0, now everything is awesome!

So it really depends on how you plan on using them, but typically home use style will get more benefit from the raptor
Click to expand...

Good input.
Luckily 4 of the blacks only cost $280.

2 Raptors would have been more of $400 price-tag :(

If these don't live up to my expectations I can always upgrade, and use these in another system for something.
 
Yeah when your looking though 1000+ photos that small pause really feels painful after a while. Now my 1TBs are in a RAID5 storage array :) So its not like they are going to waste or anything
 
Samsung F3 500gbs or 1TBs IMO.

But I see you already went for the Blacks.
 
Grentz said:
Samsung F3 500gbs or 1TBs IMO.

But I see you already went for the Blacks.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for all the reading I did today I would have chosen the Black's also and almost did. After doing some reading the Samsung F3 drives look really nice.
 
for the sake of information;

i'm running a 4x 500gb platter raid0. the array is cut into two volumes, first volume is 200gb with a 64kb stripe and the second volume is 1.8tb with a 128kb stripe. the second volume is also partitioned as i had intended on making use of linux filesystems to further my media performance, but my desktop is 24/7 windows 7 now :p

anyway, keep in mind these drives are actively being used with about 1.1tb used across both volumes, so these benchmarks are ugly.

200gb/64kb stripe vol1 - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/utspyder/vol1.png
1.8tb/128kb stripe vol2 - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/utspyder/vol2.png

10.1ms random access on the first volume, 19.0 on the second.

this array only cost me about 220usd. had i kept the first volume smaller, i'd probably have tightened up that random access easily. this is using my mobo's onboard ich10r
 
2x640GB WD Blacks in RAID0

WDBlack640GB_RAID0.jpg
 
Copyright said:
If it wasn't for all the reading I did today I would have chosen the Black's also and almost did. After doing some reading the Samsung F3 drives look really nice.
Click to expand...

They are hella fast and quiet.

Only negative I have found is they vibrate a bit more than other newer drives I have used, but I put mine in a lian li cage that had rubber grommets and no issues at all ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top