RvR (Raptor vs RAID)

joeswm8 · 01-02-2007, 03:11 AM

why would you buy a 150GB raptor for 225 when you could buy 2 320GB drives and a RAID1 card for less than 225. Putting the 320 GB drives in RAID1 gives you 14k read time vs 10k read time of the Raptor. And you get it backed up right away too in RAID 1, and double the space!

so why would someone go Raptor over RAID1?

Burgerbob · 01-02-2007, 03:14 AM

You cant just double the RPMs for the drives... and you dont even need to buy a RAID card if you have a motherboard newer than like 2004.

diduknowthat · 01-02-2007, 03:16 AM

Because it doesn't work like that

Putting two 320GB harddrives in RAID0 (I think you got your RAIDs mixed up, RAID1 is when you have 2 mirrored harddrives) would give you at maximum double the performance of one 320GB harddrive (though it almost never reaches maximum potential).

joeswm8 · 01-02-2007, 03:41 AM

from RAID 101:

Quote:

RAID1 - Mirroring
RAID1 is an implemention of drive mirroring, for every pair of drives (because RAID1 is done in pairs), the contents of DriveA is mirrored in real-time to DriveB
The advantage of RAID1 is that there is a very solid 1-level of Fault Tolerance (i.e., one drive can completely fail without any loss of data); the downside is that it is not very space efficient (drive capacity of a two-drive pair will be the size of the smaller of the two)
Since data is stored across both drives, read-performance will be (theoretically) twice that of the individual drive; write performance will be that of the slowest drive.
A minimum of two drives is required

it says the read time is double...

diduknowthat · 01-02-2007, 03:49 AM

It will be (theoretically) doubled. But so is the same as SLI and crossfire, and it never comes close to doubling. Plus, RAID 1 is for safety as one drive can fail and you won't lose data. RAID 0 is more for performance gain.

kof2000 · 01-02-2007, 03:52 AM

thats because raid1 the data are written on both drives so it takes longer and more cpu power.

Bobo · 01-02-2007, 04:00 AM

It does not take longer to write the data in RAID1, it takes the same amount of time. (roughly)

[-0MEGA-] · 01-02-2007, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeswm8

why would you buy a 150GB raptor for 225 when you could buy 2 320GB drives and a RAID1 card for less than 225. Putting the 320 GB drives in RAID1 gives you 14k read time vs 10k read time of the Raptor. And you get it backed up right away too in RAID 1, and double the space!

so why would someone go Raptor over RAID1?

Wow... RAID1 is worse performance wise then a single drive, because it has to copy the date to both drives. What your thinking of is RAID0, where it splits the data up between the drives.

And as others have said, you dont double the speed, it's still at 7,200RPM's. All that gets raised is the transfer rates.

The raptors are better then a RAID0 array because it can access files much quicker (~2ms vs ~8ms), and has a higher transfer rate then a single 7200RPM drive.

joeswm8 · 01-02-2007, 04:31 AM

but RAID 101 said that read time is doubled... so why isnt this true?

[-0MEGA-] · 01-02-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeswm8

but RAID 101 said that read time is doubled... so why isnt this true?

Are you talking about RAID1 or RAID0?

01-02-2007, 03:11 AM	#1 (permalink)
joeswm8 Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: IL Age: 17 Posts: 1,543	RvR (Raptor vs RAID) why would you buy a 150GB raptor for 225 when you could buy 2 320GB drives and a RAID1 card for less than 225. Putting the 320 GB drives in RAID1 gives you 14k read time vs 10k read time of the Raptor. And you get it backed up right away too in RAID 1, and double the space! so why would someone go Raptor over RAID1? __________________ Free Online Games ---New Computer---Server Build --X2 3800+@2.5---E6600@3.4 XFX 7900GS Extreme---eVga 7600GS--- ------2GB G.Skill DDR2-800---4GB Corsair DDR2-800 Biostar TForce 550MCP---eVga 680i-------- ------WD 160GB HDD---2x74GB Raptors -----------------Rosewill 550W---OCZ 700W GameXStream Centurion 5---P180B

01-02-2007, 03:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
Burgerbob Diamond Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Private Island Age: 19 Posts: 2,532	You cant just double the RPMs for the drives... and you dont even need to buy a RAID card if you have a motherboard newer than like 2004. __________________ MY Computer AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Black Edition, Zalman 9700 4096Mb Patriot Viper, ASUS M3N78 Pro 750GB Seagate, 500GB WD, eVGA 8800GT Antec Three Hundred Logitech MX Revolution, UltraX Media Hanns-G 19in 5ms EEEPC 4G Dell Inspiron 6000 Windows 7!

01-02-2007, 03:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
diduknowthat formerly liuliuboy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Massachusetts Age: 19 Posts: 7,495	Because it doesn't work like that Putting two 320GB harddrives in RAID0 (I think you got your RAIDs mixed up, RAID1 is when you have 2 mirrored harddrives) would give you at maximum double the performance of one 320GB harddrive (though it almost never reaches maximum potential). __________________ Media - Gaming Hybrid PC Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 4GB G.Skill DDR2 800 Memory \| 400GB WD SATA HD eVGA 8800GT 512mb Graphics Card X-Fi Xtrememusic Sound Card Hauppauge HVR 1800 MCE TV Tuner Scythe Ninja \| AC Accelero S1 Passive heatsink CM Elite 340 mATX Case \| Noctua NF-S12 Fans liusland - myminicity

01-02-2007, 03:49 AM	#5 (permalink)
diduknowthat formerly liuliuboy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Massachusetts Age: 19 Posts: 7,495	It will be (theoretically) doubled. But so is the same as SLI and crossfire, and it never comes close to doubling. Plus, RAID 1 is for safety as one drive can fail and you won't lose data. RAID 0 is more for performance gain. __________________ Media - Gaming Hybrid PC Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 4GB G.Skill DDR2 800 Memory \| 400GB WD SATA HD eVGA 8800GT 512mb Graphics Card X-Fi Xtrememusic Sound Card Hauppauge HVR 1800 MCE TV Tuner Scythe Ninja \| AC Accelero S1 Passive heatsink CM Elite 340 mATX Case \| Noctua NF-S12 Fans liusland - myminicity

01-02-2007, 03:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
kof2000 Diamond Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oahu Age: 28 Posts: 6,273	thats because raid1 the data are written on both drives so it takes longer and more cpu power. __________________ QX9650@4.2 swiftech \|9600@3.0 9700 nt 780i \| 790fx 8gb ddr1200 \| 8gb ddr1200 2x150gb 3x1tb \|2x250gb 3x8800gtx \|3x2900xt 1gb 2x20xdvdrw \|2x20xdvdrw 15in1 card reader \|15in1 card reader ng15/g9 \|ng15/g9 1200w psu \|1200w psu 2x28" LCD \|2x28" LCD

01-02-2007, 04:00 AM	#7 (permalink)
Bobo banned Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Pittsburgh Age: 18 Posts: 6,623	It does not take longer to write the data in RAID1, it takes the same amount of time. (roughly)

01-02-2007, 04:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
joeswm8 Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: IL Age: 17 Posts: 1,543	but RAID 101 said that read time is doubled... so why isnt this true? __________________ Free Online Games ---New Computer---Server Build --X2 3800+@2.5---E6600@3.4 XFX 7900GS Extreme---eVga 7600GS--- ------2GB G.Skill DDR2-800---4GB Corsair DDR2-800 Biostar TForce 550MCP---eVga 680i-------- ------WD 160GB HDD---2x74GB Raptors -----------------Rosewill 550W---OCZ 700W GameXStream Centurion 5---P180B

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe No Bootable Raid	Diamondsleeper	Motherboards	1	09-11-2006 12:41 PM
A Raid Questions	Tormoni	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	3	11-17-2005 04:58 AM
Do Dell Perc Cards Really Support RAID 10	davidshq	Computer Networking and Servers	1	09-30-2005 04:06 PM
RAID Problem... Admin/Mod input VERY APPRICIATED	georgi0u	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	6	08-20-2005 10:38 PM
RAID 5 vs. RAID 0 with SATA II	Jackson_T	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	3	05-07-2005 06:30 AM