RAID 0 7200.10 or Single 7200.11

TSIMonster · #1 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 08:14 AM

Okay, here's the story. I have 1 320GB Seagate 7200.10 HDD. When I ordered Vista, I bought a second one and a RAID controller to run the 2 in RAID 0.

Well, the HDD was DOA for whatever reason so I RMA'd it to newegg.

While waiting for the new drive to get back I got click happy and ordered a 7200.11 750GB Seagate drive (it was a good deal and I couldn't pass it up

)

My question is this: Which is faster? The 2x320GB 7200.10 drives in RAID 0 or the 750GB 7200.11 drive in JBOD mode, lol?

(really don't need this much storage, so keeping all of the HDD's is kind of overkill)

Holy_COW · #2 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 08:38 AM

hard to tell...
If the Raid controller allows mixing raids on the HDDs I will make first a Raid0 with the first 50GB (total 100GB) of each drive to place windows and games.
Then use the rest (~270 GBs) in Raid1 to keep safe my data...

thats what I'll do...

TSIMonster · #3 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 08:43 AM

not sure if the controller will allow that. It only has 2 SATA ports anyway. they offer an extension for 2 more ports, but I don't really want to buy anything else.

Also, I have 150GB in games alone, lol. Then you ad Vista, Adobe Cs3, and any other big program and you got quite a bit for the OS and your programs.

I just got to figure out what I want to do with these 3 drives. I guess I could do the 2 320s in RAID 1 and then the 750 for the OS, Programs, and Games. That could work

**Sirrobin4ever** · #4 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 08:48 AM

Why not 2x320 in RAID 0 for OS and games, and the 750 for storage?

**YMAA** · #5 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSIMonster

not sure if the controller will allow that. It only has 2 SATA ports anyway. they offer an extension for 2 more ports, but I don't really want to buy anything else.

Also, I have 150GB in games alone, lol. Then you ad Vista, Adobe Cs3, and any other big program and you got quite a bit for the OS and your programs.

I just got to figure out what I want to do with these 3 drives. I guess I could do the 2 320s in RAID 1 and then the 750 for the OS, Programs, and Games. That could work

How comfortable are you with putting your data like music, pictures, and documents on a RAID0 array? Remember, while RAID doesn't make your drives more prone to fail, it does make it so if you do lose a drive you lose everything.

I'd get the 750 myself, I'd feel safer with that. Personally I wouldn't use RAID0 on any computer that has anything but games, so it wouldn't be as big a deal if something got lost. But then, I'm paranoid, and my schoolwork lives on my gaming rig, my only computer

TSIMonster · #6 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:03 AM

I already have the drives. My question is which would be faster. The 2 7200.10 drives in RAID0 or the 7200.11 drive.

Redundancy really isn't important because I do regular backups.

Simul4ti0n · #7 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:09 AM

2x 7200.10's in RAID 0 would be faster.

**Sirrobin4ever** · #8 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simul4ti0n

2x 7200.10's in RAID 0 would be faster.

I agree.

TSIMonster · #9 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:28 AM

hmm... by how much? So OS and games on the 2 320s in RAID 0 and use the 750GB for storage?

Like I said, I do regular backups, so redundancy isn't important. I know the pitfalls of RAID 0.

**wuzy** · #10 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 05:26 PM

Keep the 320GB and 750GB separate.
Zero speed difference between the two so I'd just keep OS+prog to the 320GB (on a ~60GB partition) and keep defrag simple. The remains can be used for smaller personal storage.
While the 750GB can be used for multi GB video/rips...etc.

**YMAA** · #11 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 05:31 PM

RAID0 would be faster then. I'd go with that since you want the speed.

**wuzy** · #12 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 05:57 PM

The problem with modern big drive RAID0 is you're only taking advantage of the speed increase under very special circumstances during desktop usage, but in return you can't make use of that huge spare space, leftovers from OS+prog, for sercure/permanant personal storage.
Unless you play with lots of video editing and need big temporary workspace which also happens to enjoy the most speed increase from RAID0.

While Raptor (ADFD, not GD) in RAID0 = ridiculous $/GB for the small all-round speed increase in desktop usage.

With cheap $/GB on 320GB+ drives and speed of single drive delivering >96% of max. possible speed by HDD in any performance setup, it just makes more sense to stick to single drive.

The real speed increase comes from SSD for OS+prog. The world of HDD has reached its limit.
Sh*t will always be sh*t no matter much you double it up.

joewho · #13 (**permalink**) 03-26-2008, 12:56 AM

I've had 4ea Raptors in raid0 and saw or felt no differance in my gaming. I would run everything on the 750gb hd and setup the 320's in raid 1 for storage.

**Eurasianman** · #14 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 10:08 AM

*Eurasianman ponders on disabling his RAID 0 and use 1 x 160 GB for Windows XP and Linux and the 1 x 160 GB for Vista*

Like some have stated, unless you do excessive hard drive intensive tasks, RAID 0 is kind of pointless. I have 2 x 160 Seagate 7200.10 HDs in RAID 0 for Vista and yea... I have so much storage space left. If my budget permits, I might get a dedicated RAID controller and get 2 x 500 GBs or 2 x 750 GBs or 2 x 1 TB HDs and put them in RAID 1 for my data.

**YMAA** · #15 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurasianman

If my budget permits, I might get a dedicated RAID controller and get 2 x 500 GBs or 2 x 750 GBs or 2 x 1 TB HDs and put them in RAID 1 for my data.

You know you want the 1TB drives