Hard drive speed
Hi , I am building another sys and It has been my experience in the past that has led me to consider the harddrive atrib to my sys more thoughtfully. My delema is would 2 -75,000rpm- Harddrives on a Promise Fasttrak 133 raid0 controler be Faster then 1 -10,000rpm- Harddrive ata 133 ?.
Hi , I am building another sys and It has been my experience in the past that has led me to consider the harddrive atrib to my sys more thoughtfully . My delema is would 2 -75,000rpm- Harddrives on a Promise Fasttrak 133 raid0 controler be Faster then 1 -10,000rpm- Harddrive ata 133 ?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I assume you mean a choice between two 7,200 RPM drives in RAID 0 configuration vs. 1 10,000 RPM drive.
Many factors affect hard drive performance, and what is reasonably required. For serious video editing or other large dataset applications, the striped drives (2 in RAID 0) would likely be the best candidate (best throughput). However, the latency will likely be higher than with a single 10,000 RPM drive. As such, if your need is very dependent on how fast (relatively) small pieces of data can be read from the disk, the 10,000 RPM drive is the better choice. If you need to read a large amount of data to/from the disk, the RAID 0 pair is probably better.
Note that in a RAID 0 configuration, if one HDD fails, you lose all of the data, so data is slightly less reliable there.
If I were building a machine today, I would go with a single 10,000 RPM hdd, but again this depends on your specific application.
Many factors affect hard drive performance, and what is reasonably required. For serious video editing or other large dataset applications, the striped drives (2 in RAID 0) would likely be the best candidate (best throughput). However, the latency will likely be higher than with a single 10,000 RPM drive. As such, if your need is very dependent on how fast (relatively) small pieces of data can be read from the disk, the 10,000 RPM drive is the better choice. If you need to read a large amount of data to/from the disk, the RAID 0 pair is probably better.
Note that in a RAID 0 configuration, if one HDD fails, you lose all of the data, so data is slightly less reliable there.
If I were building a machine today, I would go with a single 10,000 RPM hdd, but again this depends on your specific application.
I'm sorry, you've seen a 10,000rpm HD that isn't SCSI where?
Right. SCSI RPMs: 7200, 10000, 15000. IDE RPMs: 5400, 7200.
Economically, it's cheaper to go RAID 0 with the two IDE drives. If you're more into speed than space, a SCSI 10k or 15k RPM drive would be sweet.
ATA133 is pointless, so don't expect anything spectacular from them. Also, Maxtor drives don't do that well in RAID 0.
I've also been reading about an 80GB IDE drive from Western Digital with a huge 8meg cache! 8) You might wanna consider that too, as it's supposedly as fast as other drives with 2MB cache in RAID 0.
Just my $0.02
Economically, it's cheaper to go RAID 0 with the two IDE drives. If you're more into speed than space, a SCSI 10k or 15k RPM drive would be sweet.
ATA133 is pointless, so don't expect anything spectacular from them. Also, Maxtor drives don't do that well in RAID 0.
I've also been reading about an 80GB IDE drive from Western Digital with a huge 8meg cache! 8) You might wanna consider that too, as it's supposedly as fast as other drives with 2MB cache in RAID 0.
Just my $0.02
It's a special edition one, so I'll have to look.
Hmmm...well it looks like they're not making the 80gig anymore, but they do have 100 &120GB special editions with 8meg caches.
Link:
http://www.westerndigital.com/products/Products.asp?DriveID=27
Link:
http://www.westerndigital.com/products/Products.asp?DriveID=27
Holy bat-crap, Batman! 8)
Quote:I just saw an IBM SCSI @ 15k RPM...access time was 2ms, hahaaaa
That's a load of crap. It's the IBM UltraStar 36Z15 and it only has an access time of 3.4ms. If you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.storage.ibm.com/hdd/ultra/ul36z15.htm
My Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP is still better. It's got 3.0ms access time. http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/specs/scsi/st318452lw.html
That's a load of crap. It's the IBM UltraStar 36Z15 and it only has an access time of 3.4ms. If you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.storage.ibm.com/hdd/ultra/ul36z15.htm
My Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP is still better. It's got 3.0ms access time. http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/specs/scsi/st318452lw.html
