• 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.

do you approve?

G

gotfrag?

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
272
hey guys im looking to do a raid 0 or 1 setup
i do not want to spend much i picked out these hardrives being that they are raid edition
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136009
so my questions:
will my dfi ultra-d work with sata raid?
can you recommend other drives?
should i get these drives?

i happened to see this while searching newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148140
is this supposed to be faster than the norm?
should i forget raid and buy this?

which should i go with being that to buy two 160gb drives costs $171.25 shipped, and buying one 320gb drive costs $117.96 shipped?
 
well, the links did not work this morning, but now that I had a look:

From an energy consumption and system complexity standpoint the single 320GB seagate wins.

From a STR standpoint, the RAID-0's WD's are likely to win, even though the increased areal density of the Seagate should give it an edge in a 1-to-1 comparison.

The access time should be better on the WD disks, but maybe Seagate has improved its barracude line form the .9 to the .10 version.

From a warranty standpoint, they are about even, though you must take the "getting drives from newegg" penalty into account, which may make your RAID-0 rather unreliable. It seems that drive damage probability increases when you get multiple drives shipped from them.

From a price perspective, the Seagate doesn't just win the up-front battle, but also the energy cost battle and the fact that you won't be stuck with two 160GB drives when you upgrade.

If I were you, I'd go for the seagate, though I am usually a WD person (for no particular reason), so I'd consider the WD3200KS as well.
I am wondering why that is not in your lineup, since it is exactly the same price as the Seagate, though it does come with a 3-yr warranty.
 
well i chose the 160gigs because i wanted to get some practice in for A+ certification
my dad is certified so he suggested to do a raid array
and neweggs packaging, should i find another source to buy from?

i was originally thinking that i was going to buy 1 320gig hd and be done with it
but raid seemed interesting to me so i looked for some smalley hds and picked the wd's
as i was looking for 320gig hd's the seagate "perpendicular" recording caught my eye lol

im not sure what to choose because raid is more expensive, yet interesting, but one hd is cheaper and easy
 
gotfrag? said:
well i chose the 160gigs because i wanted to get some practice in for A+ certification
my dad is certified so he suggested to do a raid array
Click to expand...
I see. You were not clear what the purpose of this HDD purchase was, so I took a stab in the dark, assuming that you were going to build a PC for usage, not to try stuff out with...
and neweggs packaging, should i find another source to buy from?
Click to expand...
that choice is yours. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Whether or not "shipping methods" is something that you place value on isn't for me to say. I wanted to help you make an informed decision.
i was originally thinking that i was going to buy 1 320gig hd and be done with it
but raid seemed interesting to me so i looked for some smalley hds and picked the wd's
as i was looking for 320gig hd's the seagate "perpendicular" recording caught my eye lol
Click to expand...
yes, seagate is first to market with perpendicular drives. From my understanding, the 7200.10 series is their first line of HDDs with pependicular storage.

im not sure what to choose because raid is more expensive, yet interesting, but one hd is cheaper and easy
Click to expand...
Well, in how far would RAID help you with an A+ certification (about which I know nothing).
 
unhappy_mage said:
RE drives are no good for raid 0, but they're highly recommended for raid 1. A pain, I agree. It'd be nice if WD's firmware didn't suck.

Click to expand...


why are they not good for raid 0? but good for raid 1?
can you recommend a drive that is good in both cases? dont have to be 160gb, but around $80 each
 
gotfrag? said:
why are they not good for raid 0? but good for raid 1?
can you recommend a drive that is good in both cases? dont have to be 160gb, but around $80 each
Click to expand...
The TLER feature is the answer. In raid 0, there's no redundancy, so if the drive is asked to read something, it must read it, or the data is missing. In raid 1, there's redundancy, so if one drive is asked for data and doesn't have an answer right away, the controller can ask the other drive and get a response, and nothing is harmed. Read up on TLER; it's an important concept with far-reaching implications.

To be honest, my best-choice drives for raid usage would be anything but WD. The RE series is sort of a desperate plea to those who got screwed by the earlier drives - "look, we didn't screw this one up as badly! buy it!" - but it's broken in subtly different ways, when used in non-redundant environments.

 
unhappy_mage said:
The TLER feature is the answer. In raid 0, there's no redundancy, so if the drive is asked to read something, it must read it, or the data is missing. In raid 1, there's redundancy, so if one drive is asked for data and doesn't have an answer right away, the controller can ask the other drive and get a response, and nothing is harmed. Read up on TLER; it's an important concept with far-reaching implications.

To be honest, my best-choice drives for raid usage would be anything but WD. The RE series is sort of a desperate plea to those who got screwed by the earlier drives - "look, we didn't screw this one up as badly! buy it!" - but it's broken in subtly different ways, when used in non-redundant environments.

Click to expand...


so i read this page http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?FeatureID=1019
it pretty much explains it to me.
but im still not sure on what drive to buy, i look at newegg and i only see western digital and a low rated maxtor in my price range, if i were to buy two
 
If you can stretch a bit, try these. The Maxline III's are good for raid environment (redundant ones) as well as desktop ones (raid 0, too). I gather the Hitachis are okay for both, too.

Unless you want to do raid for the sake of having done raid, buying a single more expensive disk may be a better choice. Something like this or this.

 
I don't understand why you are hung up on the "perpendicular" buzzword, but it's your choice.

Best HDD with respect to what? GB/ $ ? Access time? STR? Size?
 
drizzt81 said:
I don't understand why you are hung up on the "perpendicular" buzzword, but it's your choice.

Best HDD with respect to what? GB/ $ ? Access time? STR? Size?
Click to expand...

ok the perpendicular word caught me because i thought that the drives are supposed to be better or something, i dont know anything about it tho.
and by best i mean, best for under $90 each, with a minimum size of $160, (except for a raptor)

what do you think about this thread?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105165
what is the performance difference between these?
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=101464&prodlist=pricegrabber
and
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=100718-9
 
I'd probably go with the seagate, since it is a newer generation drive, but i have not seen any benchmarks on either of these drives.
 
im still undecided if i should do RAID or not, because i heard about the bf2 screeching sound with raid and x-fi soundcards.
if i were to do raid 0 how big should i make the stripe for a gamer?
im wondering if i should buy two seagates and do raid, or buy a 74gb raptor and a 250 or 320gb seagate
 
Do a RAID-1 setup so your data is safe. Personally, I'd go with a Raptor for main drive and two large sata drives in RAID-1 for redundancy.
 
Got a Seagate 7200.10 for my birthday and it is pretty sweet so far. Fairly quiet except for large file seek and HD tach says it is pulling 250MB+ a sec for burst rate.

It is a 500GB that is in my HTPC. Havent had much time to play with it but looks like it definaetly has what it takes. I would look into the 160 GB 7200.10 single platters for a RAID.
 
ok i have a few ideas...
buy two 250gb seagates, - lots of storage and cheapest
buy two used WD740ADFD's - fast and keep my current drive for backups
buy one more st3120827as (120gb seagate) to match my current drive, and buy a WD740ADFD, - raid and single drive
what to do....?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top