IDE RAID 0 VS SATAII/300 RAID 0

A

annaconda

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
9,925
Ok i need some help here. I am using IDE Drives in RAID 0, which gives me 100MB or more transfer rate. I never used SATA II drives, would it give me more performance if i go SATA II in RAID 0.

I read over the internet that IDE in RAID 0 is better than SATA II in RAID 0, because SATA drives use alot of CPU power and performance is not good. IDE is better in every case.

Is it True?
 
I don't see how it possibly could be.
Data transfer with SATA drives is faster than IDE- RAIDed or not.
 
yeah whatever u heard is total BS..

i use little CPU power on my SATA2 RAID, i have 0 issues, etc. the performance is very good too

IDE is plain and simple, outdated
 
Interface does not affect mechanical drive performance, provided you're looking at UATA 100 or above. A WD2500JB is going to deliver the same performance as a WD2500JS.

However, I'd personally find it hard to justify running PATA drives in RAID when SATA is available. SATA is a vastly superior protocol for multi drive setups, with neater cables, direct point-to-point links, etc.
 
OK, I'll say it. That's an idiotic comparison -- they are vastly different drives, and bound to give different performance, and don't give any clear indication of interface performance differences.
 
annaconda said:
Ok any body has any comparison results.
Click to expand...

The best idea is simply to go SATA. Even if PATA gave you a 10-20% performance improvement, which it won't, SATA is much better to deal with for cabling, and is the future trend -- you'll find it much easier to manage and get support for it. All the new RAID controllers are going to be SATA. Going PATA for RAID makes no sense when you have a choice.

If you want to defend some choice you've already made, then why bother? -- if going PATA is more convenient for you for some reason, then just go ahead...
 
annaconda said:
Benchmarks
Click to expand...

Umm that is a OLD benchmark on Linux with early Linux VIA drivers. I would put no faith in that setup performing in any way similar to a current modern drive on a current chipset, with up to date windows drivers. (or even newer linux drivers)

And RAID 0 is a different can of worms in and of itself.

edit: Hear is more on the topic of interfaces if you are interested: http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/index.html

edit: And here is somthing on the topic of RAID 0: http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0

==>lazn
 
Well i would love to buy SATA drives, but they are expensive as compare to IDE drives. I am not trying to defend any thing, i am try to see why the hell you have to pay more when you don;t get any performance increase.

If i will have to buy any more hard drives i will definately buy SATA II because they are future proof.
 
annaconda said:
If i will have to buy any more hard drives i will definately buy SATA II because they are future proof.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "future proof".
SATA II is a good buy today (assuming your motherboard supports it) but will no doubt be passe in five years or so.
 
sprocket said:
There is no such thing as "future proof".
SATA II is a good buy today (assuming your motherboard supports it) but will no doubt be passe in five years or so.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Sata is slated to go to 6 and then 12 gbit/s, with backwards and forwards compatibility. Thus, in five years, we might be able to actually use our disks from today. :eek:

 
unhappy_mage said:
Not necessarily. Sata is slated to go to 6 and then 12 gbit/s, with backwards and forwards compatibility. Thus, in five years, we might be able to actually use our disks from today. :eek:

Click to expand...
my 6 year old quantum fireball KX is still compatible with most motherboards today :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top