In this good HD performance???

L

LawGiver

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
2,077
Just wondering if this is good hard drive performance? also, how much faster would one of those 10k drives be. tbh i always bought the cheapest HD that was on sale so i dont know much about them.


53syesx.jpg
 
Not bad. It looks like you have one of the updated KS drives, probably an AAKS, since its faster than my two KS drives. The thing I like about the KS drives is that they're quieter than my 'cudas. I have a raptor, too (twas a gift), and its as loud as the 'cudas. Here are my numbers from HD Tune:

78MB/s: WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB, $160AR
52MB/s: WD Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB, $70

When you get into the 500GB range, their speeds are all on par with each other (Seagate, WD, Samsung, Hitachi). The newer 'cudas are a tiny bit faster:

65MB/s: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $80
65MB/s: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3300620AS 300GB, $60
112MB/s: RAID0 'cuda's, 600GB total, $120 (ICH9R on P35-DS3R)

If you want faster performance without breaking the bank, RAID0 is it. However, just know you NEED a good backup solution with RAID0. Though, you should have a good backup scheme regardless of the use of RAID.
 
how much faster will load times be for me with the WD1500ADFD but not using raid? cuz right now vista takes like 2 min to load.
 
Not sure about Vista, but it would increase bootup time. Vista takes a while to learn your tendencies, so it should speed up as time goes on.

With XP, I didnt time the difference, but it is considerably faster with the Raptor. With RAID0, the Raptor gets left in the dust, though, lol.
 
i thought RAID was just a way to hook multiple hard drives together so they act as one. its faster?
 
LawGiver said:
i thought RAID was just a way to hook multiple hard drives together so they act as one. its faster?
Click to expand...

Depends on the RAID level. The most common are 0, 1, and 5.

RAID0 is striping, using two drives as one. (2 drives minimum)
Benefit: faster read/write speeds
Cost: higher chance of data loss

RAID1 is mirroring, where one drive is an exact copy of the main drive. (2 drives minimum)
Benefit: minimal downtime if a single drive fails
Cost: high overhead

RAID5 is striping with parity bits. (3 drives minimum)
Benefit: Data recovery possible if single drive fails, along with fast read times
Cost: slower write times (due to parity)

Google for more in-depth details on RAID.
 
so other than RAID0, the only way to speed up boot/loading times is to get a 10k or 15k drive? i just wonder if i will notice a difference with say the WD1500ADFD cuz i definenly wont be doing any kind of raid.
 
well ok ive been reading up on RAID and maybe i will go for RAID0. only question i cant seem to find is do i have to have the EXACT same drive if i want to use two drives for RAID0?
 
LawGiver said:
well ok ive been reading up on RAID and maybe i will go for RAID0. only question i cant seem to find is do i have to have the EXACT same drive if i want to use two drives for RAID0?
Click to expand...

No, but its recommended. The array size will be 2x the lowest common size. For example, if you had a 200GB drive and a 120GB drive, you'd end up with a 240GB array, with 80GB of the 200GB drive going unused.
 
thx for all the help. actually i have the exact same drive you do, WD2500KS. I just dl HD Tune and got the same score you did, 52.2 MB/sec tbe. :) i was gonna get the raptor 10k, but i think instead ill get another WD2500KS for RAID0 and use the the extra money to get an external backup solution.
 
I agree, thats a good plan.

I should really empty out my WD2500KS drives and see how they do in RAID... I'm guessing around 90MB/s, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top