PDA

View Full Version : Should I buy a couple of these?


Pages : [1] 2

Roadhog
11-03-06, 08:20 PM
I'm thinking about getting a couple of these drives for a RAID 0 array. Do you think this would be a good choice? If no, what else is out there that is better for under $200.

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148140

Maybe later down the road I will add 2 more. Will 4 drives help the performance alot over 2?

EDIT: I just noticed that I can get the 150gb RaptorX for $199...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136011

Will this give me better performance than the 2 raid drives? For like games and desktop aplications.

einstein_314
11-03-06, 08:37 PM
The Seagate 320GB drives are amazing fast. I got one a few weeks ago and it blows my old WD out of the water. And it would be even faster in RAID 0. As for if the Raptor would be faster...I don't know. As it is, I think the Seagate 320GB is almost as fast as the Raptor. Put it in RAID 0 and I'd say it's faster.

Roadhog
11-03-06, 10:40 PM
soo, anyone else have any ideas?

crainger
11-04-06, 01:21 AM
I was recently investigating RAID here on nV News. I was told RAID with either 2 to 4 drives will do little in terms of speed in most games and apps. The only advantage is during OS boot, copying huge files, video editting and maybe during game load times. In the end I just settled for a 150gb Raptor :D

Roadhog
11-04-06, 01:23 AM
so how do you like the raptor? talk me into it.

EDIT: i wana see a pretty decent performance boost over my WD 250GB SE16.

crainger
11-04-06, 01:32 AM
The Raptor has been great. After a fresh defrag my system is super snappy. The biggest improvement I saw was in load times in The Sims 2 between lots :).

However it is hard to recommend the Raptor when it costs as much as drives that are still pretty fast with 2-3 times the capacity.

Though it seems you value the speed so I'd say a Raptor is your best bet. Maybe adding another as their price drops.

Here are some benchies. As you can see the Raptor is almost up their with the SCSI drives. Not too shabby (lee63)

Roadhog
11-04-06, 01:41 AM
seriously.. I have one guy for the seagates, and one for the raptor. I CANT DECIDE. :(:(

DataMatrix
11-04-06, 02:19 AM
I'd say go for Seagate, the Raptors aren't worth the money, you don't get much space.

Redeemed
11-04-06, 03:35 AM
Well, get four raptors and go RAID 0+1, couldn't go wrong that way, though your wallet will hate you. :p

CaptNKILL
11-04-06, 03:41 AM
Another vote for the Seagates. I've never used a Raptor, and I've heard they are fast but they are ridiculously expensive per GB compared to other drives.

You wont be disapointed with 2 Seagate 320Gb 7200.10 drives. :thumbsup:

I bought my second one for $90 to use in an external enclosure for backups. :)

Roadhog
11-04-06, 12:34 PM
hmm, well looks like the seagates it is. But the raptor gives a larger e-penis... hmmm

mullet
11-04-06, 06:38 PM
omg no brainer, 2 150GB 10,000 RPM Raptors 16MB buffer @ raid 0, good god thats fast.

DataMatrix
11-04-06, 08:52 PM
But 4x 320GB Seagates = ultra speed & space.

CaptNKILL
11-04-06, 09:25 PM
omg no brainer, 2 150GB 10,000 RPM Raptors 16MB buffer @ raid 0, good god thats fast.
And its $400 for 20gb less space than a single $90 seagate 7200.10 320Gb :o

2 Seagate 7200.10 320Gb drives would cost less than 1 Raptor 150Gb.

Thats just nuts IMO. :o

TiKiMaN1
11-04-06, 10:34 PM
I have 2 Seagates and 2 WD Raptors in my system and I love both, But I will flat out disagree with everyone here and just say right now that my raptors smoke my games when running apps and games. They are quite a bit faster IMO.

In other words RAPTORS FTW if you have got the cash!!!:D

Dazz
11-04-06, 11:54 PM
Well i have the Raptor X drives in RAID 0 average transfer rate is 155MB/sec no i am not on about the speed of SATA either. They are amazing drives i paid 530 for the 2 drives but they are much cheaper now thinking of getting an other 2 as i am sharp running out of space now. 4x 10,000 16MB drives drool. Drives are so fast if you blink you can miss the windows Start up screen :D

Roadhog
11-05-06, 12:25 AM
well I only have a $200 price budget.

mullet
11-05-06, 08:19 AM
well I only have a $200 price budget.

ooh ok man then Seagate it is.

Roadhog
11-05-06, 12:25 PM
hmm, then I guess seagates it is. :D

nV`andrew
11-05-06, 12:30 PM
every seagate drive i've had, i have loved

Roadhog
11-05-06, 09:30 PM
Alright. I just saw some RAID0 benchmarks of 4 of the seagate 320 drives, and I nearly pissed myself.

Here is the pic of the benchmarks.
http://i10.tinypic.com/3151vu1.jpg

I'm wondering if I bought 4 of these drives, would I get near that same performance? I can't find anywhere if my RAID controller thing is run off the PCI bus or anything. The motherboard I have is in my sig, and has an ICH8R southbridge.

stncttr908
11-05-06, 11:32 PM
My two cap out at 110MB/sec sustained, but I have a crappy first generation controller.

Roadhog
11-05-06, 11:59 PM
My two cap out at 110MB/sec sustained, but I have a crappy first generation controller.

Think mine should do better?

Bman212121
11-06-06, 12:50 AM
Think mine should do better?

You need to go visit the hot deals forum, we have 3 pages about the segates here: http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=78176

My bursts were bus limitied an I could get 250MB bursting, with 125MB sustained.

This is one drive, bus limited, others have shown 200MB bursting from a single drive with the jumper taken out and on a Sata 2 header.
http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL506/2293564/4495582/195597159.jpg

This one was on my old Gigabyte board using sata 150 headers and an nv raid.
http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL506/2293564/4495582/196488955.jpg

I will post the benches from this DFI board in just a minute.

EDIT: This is on the Nforce4 controller
http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL506/2293564/4495582/202404107.jpg
It's a touch faster, but for some reason the bursting is much slower, I'm guessing it's how the controller is attached to the chipset. That is even with the jumper pulled. I also threw in the fastest raptor test they had in HDTach. It was 2 74GB raptors in Raid 0. Only difference between a raptor and the segates are the access times. That's the advantage of the 10K speed. The 150GB should be faster, since it is at a higher data density. But 1 of em wouldn't even come close to the 2 segates.

This link: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=raptor150raid&page=5&cookie%5Ftest=1 shows the Raptors in all kinds of configs. You can see that one drive is only going to be faster for access times. I'm not really sure how they came up with those burst rates, but like the other one that was posted, it is probably more dependant on the controller than anything. It most likely shows the speed of the cache on the controller card and not the cache on the drive itself. ROFL! Just noticed.... "Burst Transfer Rates are insanely high, since we used an Areca RAID controller card with 128 MB of onboard DDR cache, which is more representative of the controller speed rather than the disk speeds. However, interestingly enough, the Raptor 150’s burst rates are indeed a bit higher when in a RAID array, but slower out of the array."

So yes, I'm all for these Segates as well, not to mention they are wisper quiet. Here is another idea that I've wondered about too. Take this example. The tests show the access times from various points across the entire drive. The Raptors win because the data comes back around to the heads faster, but also because they don't actually use the entire platter either. The inner most tracks are blank, which is what helps speed up disk performance in all categories. The logic that I'm using on mine is I don't need the space anyway, so if I were to cut the drive into 1/3, which is what I'm currently doing, I have 200GB of usable space. As long as when it writes the partition from the outer tracks inward, it should be only using the first 1/3 of the drive. So in theory anyway, I have more drive space, which much better access times because no matter where the data is at in the partition, it is only located on 1/3 of the drive, so the heads don't have to travel as far to get to data. Also, it is the fastest part of the disc, so the speeds are probably consistant in the 145MBps range. I'm not sure if that is totally true or not, but it sounds good in theory.

Bman212121
11-06-06, 01:31 AM
Alright. I just saw some RAID0 benchmarks of 4 of the seagate 320 drives, and I nearly pissed myself.

Here is the pic of the benchmarks.
http://i10.tinypic.com/3151vu1.jpg

I'm wondering if I bought 4 of these drives, would I get near that same performance? I can't find anywhere if my RAID controller thing is run off the PCI bus or anything. The motherboard I have is in my sig, and has an ICH8R southbridge.

What you need to do to see what the controller is on is open device manager. You can get there by right clicking on my computer and choosing manage. Click on device manager. Then click on view, and change to view devices by connection. You will be able to open up the items to figure out where the controller is located at.

This is my old gigabyte board. I got single drive bursting of 136MBs and the 220+ in a raid array. Notice that it is located on the PCI bus, but not under the bridge device like the Silcon Image card is. I'm almost postive that my PCI SIL0680 card used to reside under the bridge as well. It was hardcore bus limited there, and I'm pretty sure bursting was limited on the SIL3512 sata controller as well because I only hit 117MB vs the 136MB on the NV.
http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL506/2293564/4495582/195763127.jpg


This is my DFI board, the NV controller is located in the same place, so I'm not sure what's up with the slower bursting. I am running Windows X64 now though, so it might be attributed to a driver.

http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL506/2293564/4495582/202408634.jpg

So I'm going to say as long as your not using a controller on a bridge device, it will probably not be bus limited. So as long as it works like it should, you should be able to get numbers just like mine, if not better.

One more interesting side note, I'm thinking that this also has something to do with the X-FI popping issues. That old PCI card used to make the sound card go nuts when I was trying to listen to music and defrag. I haven't noticed that issue now using the NV controller, which is NOT using the bridge device. I didn't expand it, but the other 2 bridge devices you see are the 6800GT cards, so that might play into the problem as well, but I have yet to notice any popping using this setup with both cards fully loaded. It may be something to look into for people with the issues.