|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hard Drive Question
How much faster are the RAID 10,000 rpm drives than the standard 7200 rpm ones (seagate, etc.)? Is it worth paying the extra money and sacrificing hard drive space?
I will be mainly using it for poker, surfing the net, and watching porn. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
I personally feel 10k rpm drives are not worth it however I seem to be in the minority (personally I think its a placebo effect but I don't care enough to test my theory, its your money after all).
RAID refers to arrays of multiple drives. They can offer speed benefits as well as redundancy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
I just built a machine and have 2 10k drives in RAID 0
it flies - no more lag on FTP or other sites that were lagging, HUD stats pop up immediately, etc. I think it's worth it especially if you have big databases. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
[ QUOTE ]
I just built a machine and have 2 10k drives in RAID 0 it flies - no more lag on FTP or other sites that were lagging, HUD stats pop up immediately, etc. I think it's worth it especially if you have big databases. [/ QUOTE ] And don't care about your data... I wouldn't recommend RAID 0 for general usage. And believe me, if FTP was lagging, it wasn't due to hard drive throughput. The general idea behind 10k drives is to reduce latency, which can make windows slightly faster when you are opening programs for the first time or otherwise loading large data from the hard drive. While it is minor, there is a definite speed advantage here. I don't know what the cost difference is, but if it is minor you might as well spring for the 10k. If the difference is large, I would just go with the standard 7.2k drives. RAID is a whole different can of worms. It is a way to combine multiple hard drives together to form 1 simulated hard drive with some sort of advantage. RAID 0 gives you a disk throughput advantage (although not latency), but doubles the risk of data loss. RAID 1 gives you double protection of your data but throws away 1/2 your available disk space. I would just stick to normal 7.2k drives without RAID. It is going to complicate your life pretty much needlessly. If you want to increase performance on something like a database, pay attention to the amount of cache on each hard drive (or get more RAM for your system). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
it's just a poker machine
only valuable data on it are my pt databases that I back up abyways |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a poker machine only valuable data on it are my pt databases that I back up abyways [/ QUOTE ] Well RAID 0 certainly has applications, and if you are very strict about making backups it isn't so bad. However I still don't recommend it for general usage. I also think if you benchmarked your RAID 0 database against one running on a single drive you wouldn't be blown away by the difference, but I guess a lot of this depends on the database size and usage. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
My personal experience: RAID0 seemed super fast, and I definitely noticed an increase in speed of PokerTracker imports, although I didn't do any hard tests.
Then one of my harddrives failed, and I had to reinstall the entire machine. I lost my poker data, but that was just poker data. Take that for what it's worth. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
[ QUOTE ]
RAID 0 gives you a disk throughput advantage (although not latency), but doubles the risk of data loss. [/ QUOTE ] It is actually a little less than double your risk, but what is the failure rate HDDs these days? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] RAID 0 gives you a disk throughput advantage (although not latency), but doubles the risk of data loss. [/ QUOTE ] It is actually a little less than double your risk, but what is the failure rate HDDs these days? [/ QUOTE ] Brings me back to statistics class, but either way the failure rate of a drive is >> 0, and it isn't just the hard drives. I have seen many reports of those onboard RAID controllers corrupting drives, because they are cheap and crappy. And looking at the setup, it looks great. Using a higher RPM drive for the OS/application drive is a smart move, and will make your computer feel faster due to the lower latency. However with the 2nd drives bigger cache and I'm guessing higher throughput, I wouldn't be surprised if your database runs faster on it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hard Drive Question
[ QUOTE ]
How much faster are the RAID 10,000 rpm drives than the standard 7200 rpm ones (seagate, etc.)? Is it worth paying the extra money and sacrificing hard drive space? I will be mainly using it for poker, surfing the net, and watching porn. [/ QUOTE ] RAID is not a type of drive, RAID is a type of hard drive control. There are two typical methods of setting up RAID, RAID 0 and RAID 1, RAID 0 splits the data between two or more drives and eliminates or reduces the lag time of the read/write head moving to a new location to read data. This is known as striping. RAID 1 is know are "mirrored" and creates a second image of the first drive on the second for protection against HDD failure. There is also RAID 10 or 0+1 which combines the two but requires 4 HDDs. There is a RAID 5 which adds a parity bit check and requires 3 HDDs. I have heard that a 7,200 RAID 0 system performs as well a 10,000 RPM standard setup, but I havent seen any benchmarks. |
|
|