PDA

View Full Version : 2x120 Seagate vs. 2x80 WD for RAid 0 ????

L&M
11-10-04, 04:56 PM
Both pairs SATA and 8 MB cache. I want to buy a pair for a Raid 0.

Wich would you choose?

I can get 2 Seagates,but no money left for another stick of RAM.

If I get 2 WD's,I can put some money for that RAM and get it.
bchur83
11-10-04, 05:13 PM
Depends, do you need 240GB or 160GB of storage? The WD will probably come with a 3yr warranty, where as the Seagates will have a 5yr. Do you game? If so, you may be better off adding the ram.
L&M
11-10-04, 05:41 PM
I incline to 2x80 WD's because I have a DVD Writer Asus,so I can use that for storage.
I play games,not a lot,but I play them.
I also do some video editing,that's another point in favor of the RAM.Don't you think?

I want to see more opinions,cause I'm gonna buy them tommorow.
bchur83
11-10-04, 05:48 PM
Although video can take up a lot of HD space, depending on codecs used, I would say to go for the 2x80GB & the extra ram.
tom10167
11-10-04, 06:04 PM
160GB is A LOT. Figure XP is about 2 gigs, and a huge game(Far Cry, UT04) are 5 gigs, a full length DVD is about 5 gigs, ....well, it's a lot of storage.

With that said I bought a 200GB hard drive and less than a month later I'm about 60% full. The difference is I was planning on filling it up this fast. You will probably never use 50% of your storage.
L&M
11-11-04, 02:06 PM
Got 2x80 WD's as I mentioned be4. ;)
Tebore
11-11-04, 02:42 PM
Use 2x120 Seagates in RAID 0 it's plenty fast if not faster than the WD JBs. It's quieter and a 5 year warrenty gives you piece of mind.
L&M
11-13-04, 09:15 PM
Yesterday I had the first problems with Raid 0.
YES,ALREADY.

I had data corruption on C: and D:

Even now I'm not sure what caused this corruption,but I suspect the 4.2.47 driver.

So,I took a PATA HDD to copy data from the 2 SATA HDD's,then I ran a Low-Level Format on both SATA drives.After that I changed the bios with one that had 4.2.27 and reinstalled Windows.

'Till now seems to work fine.If I encounter any other problem,I'm giving up on Raid.

Question: anyone know why I had that problem.Could it be the 4.2.47 driver??
L&M
11-14-04, 10:57 AM
No one?!

I forgot to tell that when I had those problems,Windows kept runing chkdsk at almost every start.
Xenocide
11-14-04, 11:06 AM
um, ifyour running raid 0 your not supposed to have c and d hdds..only C
Tebore
11-14-04, 11:06 AM
No one?!

I forgot to tell that when I had those problems,Windows kept runing chkdsk at almost every start.

You should change the P2P EXT time to 1ms and get the latest SIL driver ver 1.0051 and if you feel comfortable get a modded bios that has the 4.2.50 Added.
L&M
11-14-04, 07:28 PM
um, ifyour running raid 0 your not supposed to have c and d hdds..only C

What?!
I never heard of that.How can I possibly make a partition of 160GB?!

You should change the P2P EXT time to 1ms and get the latest SIL driver ver 1.0051 and if you feel comfortable get a modded bios that has the 4.2.50 Added.

As you can see in my sig,I have no problems in getting a modded bios.
Where can I find those drivers&bios?

I found a nice topic on the Abit forums wich made me delete Raid and make another one with 4k chunk,because Windows formats with 4k cluster by default.In the topic they say it's best to have those two equal (4k=4k,16k=16k)
Tebore
11-14-04, 07:35 PM
What?!
I never heard of that.How can I possibly make a partition of 160GB?!



As you can see in my sig,I have no problems in getting a modded bios.
Where can I find those drivers&bios?

I found a nice topic on the Abit forums wich made me delete Raid and make another one with 4k chunk,because Windows formats with 4k cluster by default.In the topic they say it's best to have those two equal (4k=4k,16k=16k)

I have Taipan CPC off modified with the 4.2.50 Bios if you want it PM me with an Email address, as usual we are not responsible for any damage the bios might cause.