1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2X80 raid 0 or 1x 200 HDD?

Discussion in 'Storage Drives' started by MeEsH BaKkA, 4 Feb 2006.

  1. MeEsH BaKkA

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Dec 2002

    Posts: 2,948

    What would be the better choice for speed, I know the two 80's would have less space but would it make much diffrence for games etc... with a Raid 0 setup??

    Also Which HDD manufacture should I use:

    1. Seagate (I like there 5yr Waranty - but I have been told they are very slow is this true?)

    2 Samsung (Apparently much faster and quieter and about a quid cheaper lol)

    3 Another manufacture

    Thanx for any help
     
  2. smids

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Dec 2004

    Posts: 6,660

    Location: London/Kent

    Well, it's tricky. (R)AID0 has no backup of data and if one drive dies, the whole lot is lost. In this sense, there is a lot more risk involved in RAID0. It is undoubtedly fast though will make a difference in map loading etc for games.

    If you do go for RAID0, make sure you backup often.

    About the choice of drive, Segates are the most reliable and come with the most warranty. They aren't the fastest drives but they are by no means slow. TBH, there is very little difference between any of the drives. We are talking milliseconds here, something which you cannot measure in real terms.

    The fastest and best all-round drives are probably the Hitachi's. 7K80's are good - in fact, I'm buying 4 for a RAID0+1 very soon.
     
  3. MeEsH BaKkA

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Dec 2002

    Posts: 2,948

    So would you say the Hitachi's are the best choice then, what is the reliability like on these drives? I hope they have Improved since the IBM Deathstars :D
     
  4. smids

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Dec 2004

    Posts: 6,660

    Location: London/Kent

    Have a look at my poll :). They are indeed much better since the IBM Deathstars. They are one of the fastest drives, most feature rich and one of the only 3 brands I trust in WD, Seagate and Hitachi.
     
  5. Borden

    Mobster

    Joined: 14 Jul 2005

    Posts: 3,808

    Location: Derby

    Whatever your choice, if you get a 200GB single drive, then just a warning that my 200GB Seagate is VERY loud. My 36GB Raptor seems quiet compared to it. When it's reading/writing i can hear it from outside my bedroom with the door closed :eek: The 160GB Seagate i had before it was silent though so it may only be the 200GB ones that are noisy.

    The current 200GB 7200.9 Seagate on OcUK may be quieter than mine as mine's a 7200.8 version so i can't comment on it. If it was me making the choice though, i would go for a 250GB drive which are supposed to be quieter, a bit faster and cost less.
     
  6. smids

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Dec 2004

    Posts: 6,660

    Location: London/Kent

    Yeah my 250GB seagate is quiet.
     
  7. Foxor`

    Banned

    Joined: 23 Oct 2003

    Posts: 580

    Location: Cambridge

    my 250gb maxtor is ******* Loud man i wish i never got it :mad:

    awsome rig btw smids!!
     
  8. smids

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Dec 2004

    Posts: 6,660

    Location: London/Kent

    Maxtor's always are.

    And thank you, but there are some with much better rigs than mine - although I am tweaing at the moment. 2GB RAM etc.

    The Seagate 250GB was renowned for having the new 133GB platters which only required 2 instead of the normal 4 which is why they are so quiet.
     
    Last edited: 4 Feb 2006
  9. Borden

    Mobster

    Joined: 14 Jul 2005

    Posts: 3,808

    Location: Derby

    It's a shame i found that out AFTER buying my 200GB :(

    Oh well..........
     
  10. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 27 Sep 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    Maybe I'm deaf but I'm using 3 Maxtors in my PC just now and they don't seem loud, when seeking they are audible but I haven't taken a single measure to try to quieten them down and I do sleep in the same room as my PC without it affecting me :)

    For the original question I'd probably just go with the single larger drive as it is less hassle and you aren't relying on two drives to perform as one, also the chances are slim that you will notice any real performance difference other than while benchmarking or if you work with large files often.
     
  11. Cyber-Mav

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2005

    Posts: 14,100

    Location: Midlands

    single drive, less hassle, lower power consumption, less overall heat generated, better reliability than raid, cheaper gb/£ ratio.