10000 rpm v. 7200 rpm question

Timo said:
One dollar per Gigabyte... A bit too much for my likings, normally that would be like 35 cents... You could get a triple raid0 and still be faster for the same money with a whooooooooooooooole lot more space :) (disk-space that is; not case-space ^^ )
Click to expand...

What if you buy an 80GB 7200 and 150GB 10K and RAID those? That would be faster than just buying the 150GB!!!

Yay!!

I'm curious as to how a triple RAID 0 would be faster than the 10K HDD?
 
For one any array whether RAID ide or a sata array requires two identical drives in order to work. For most home users however arrays are too vulnerable to practically put to use while simply adding a second larger storage drive works well for most.
 
PC eye said:
For one any array whether RAID ide or a sata array requires two identical drives in order to work. For most home users however arrays are too vulnerable to practically put to use while simply adding a second larger storage drive works well for most.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks.
 
For most home users arrays are too touchy where any slight glitch will see an array fail. Or if a drive lets go you lose everything fast since you are spreading data for everything there across two not one drives there. When multibooting OS here and changing partition sizes as well as moving OSs around duplicate folders had to be made on a second storage partition created for temp storage until the OSs were all set.

When removing one ide drive to see Vista go on a sata previously used for storage only I just happened to have bought an external drive to see everything backed up there and things worked out. For those only working with one drive seeing two primaries or one drive loaded with files and wanting to then dual boot that second large capacity drive can prevent losing everything if a dual boot and repartitioning fails.

Now imagine having everything on an array and that having an ut oh... :eek:
 
jkcampbell730 said:
Interesting. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't. If the two drives are different, the array will be created to the smaller of the bunch.

RAID1 gives redundancy. A mirror. Again, it doesn't have to be the same drive.

RAID5 gives redundancy and parity.. A drive can fail and the other two keep chugging. It's the better of the bunch, although a little pricey to deploy.

There are those wannabes that use WD Caviar SEs for RAID0 configurations.. That's just laughable at best. ;)
 
RAID5 it is then :p

jkcampbell730 said:
What if you buy an 80GB 7200 and 150GB 10K and RAID those? That would be faster than just buying the 150GB!!!

Yay!!

I'm curious as to how a triple RAID 0 would be faster than the 10K HDD?
Click to expand...

You'd only have 80Gb available... That's just... Stupid :p (the guy that quoted you first said this, only he said it in a way you'd have to read a lot and still not understand it).

With RAID 0 it will take the maximum size of the smallest Hard-disk you've put in.
 
Timo said:
RAID5 it is then :p



You'd only have 80Gb available... That's just... Stupid :p (the guy that quoted you first said this, only he said it in a way you'd have to read a lot and still not understand it).

With RAID 0 it will take the maximum size of the smallest Hard-disk you've put in.
Click to expand...

Yes yes yes... I realize the stupidity of my post. Thanks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top