Hard Drive Question

[The Funky Llama]

Bump. Just want to see what you guys think of this setup. Trying to pull the trigger on the purchase soon.

1) 160GB - WD Raptor 10000RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache . This will be my main drive.

2) 1TB - Hitachi 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache. This will be my secondary drive - where I store mostly music, video, and poker database backups.

[funkyworms]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump. Just want to see what you guys think of this setup. Trying to pull the trigger on the purchase soon.

1) 160GB - WD Raptor 10000RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache . This will be my main drive.

2) 1TB - Hitachi 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache. This will be my secondary drive - where I store mostly music, video, and poker database backups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks fine (if not overkill). Just remember to install your OS, programs, and your database on the raptor.

[Neko]

I went this same route and am v. happy with it.

[Beavis68]

[ 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?

[pokergrader]

[ 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.