** Help - What's the fastest HDD setup?

Revivalist · Jun 29, 2007

I would like to upgrade the size and speed of the hard drives . . . I was thinking of going with four 150GB Raptors in RAID 0. The only thing I don’t like about that is that they're still not SATA II. Is there a better choice out there?

I’m gonna’ have a 750GB backup drive with a full copy of everything so I’m not worried about data loss. I just want to know what is the fastest hard drive setup possible. . . .

Thanks for any help guys!

Jon · Jun 29, 2007

15K SCSI in RAID 0.

Vio1 · Jun 29, 2007

I once had a 15k scsi setup. Its faster then the raptors, but be prepared for the high pitch noise.

tuskenraider · Jun 29, 2007

SATA 3.0Gb/s spec isn't necessary for any drive. Get the Raptors.

Revivalist · Jun 29, 2007

Yeah, I was looking at those SAS (Serial attached SCSI) drives. But they're just too expensive. . .

So I guess the Raptors are the way to go.

Are there different model numbers with the 150GB Raptors that peform better? I remember that's how it was with the 74GB Raptors.

tuskenraider · Jun 29, 2007

All the current models(ADFD) are 16MB cache drives, along with the AHFD which has the window. They perform equally.

Maviryk · Jun 29, 2007

Please stop posting in lime green, colored posts are reserved for moderators.

All the current 16mb cache raptors perform the same, unlike the 8mb cache ones. You could take 3 and slice the first 6.2gb of each drive in matrix raid for the best performance.

tuskenraider · Jun 29, 2007

Maviryk said:
You could take 3 and slice the first 6.2gb of each drive in matrix raid for the best performance.

For the "best" performance he would use a third party disk defragmenter like Perfect Disk to line up files of importance from the edge of the disks platter in. Squeezing them in an small array does no such thing.

Revivalist · Jun 29, 2007

Maviryk said:
Please stop posting in lime green, colored posts are reserved for moderators.

All the current 16mb cache raptors perform the same, unlike the 8mb cache ones. You could take 3 and slice the first 6.2gb of each drive in matrix raid for the best performance.

Ok. . . (Just wondering, are you a mod?)

I thought matrix raid was possible only on Intel chipsets according to this statement in the matrix sticky

It is all about exploiting the best or speediest part of the hard drives (mininum 2) for best performance using the built in Intel south bridge chip AND use the slower part for data protection in Raid 1 / 5 or 10 (depends how many drives you use).

Sorry for non Intel chipset owner. It applies only for ICHxR Intel South Bridge chip. (Colored text is simply from the quote. Please don't be upset.)

tuskenraider said:
For the "best" performance he would use a third party disk defragmenter like Perfect Disk to line up files of importance from the edge of the disks platter in. Squeezing them in an small array does no such thing.

So performance wise, there's not benefit to partitions, right?

tuskenraider · Jun 29, 2007

Revivalist said:
Ok. (Are you a mod?)

I thought matrix raid was possible only on Intel chipsets according to this statement in the matrix sticky

Correct. Since he didn't read your sig, he made a recommendation you can't use.

Revivalist said:
So performance wise, there's not benefit to partitions, right?

Well yes there is, it just isn't the best way to organize files. You can use a partition for a small performance benefit in the way the Matrix RAID users do. Say you estimate you need 15GB for your OS and all programs and make a 18GB partition to be safe. On say a 500GB hard drive, you'll keep all these files near the outside platters of the disk where this partition was created. Here, speeds are highest and seeks will be limited to that small area. A smart third party defragmenter like Perfect Disk can defragment and place all your files to the outside of the disk as well, but without the need of a partition. This is the best possible performance because you not only have all the files at the fastest part of the disk, you also have them in order of use, importance, modification, etc. It's the type of program every PC enthusiast should have.

Revivalist · Jun 29, 2007

Ok, that makes sense. I totally follow you on the whole idea of keeping data near the edge of the disk for fastest access. . . Thank you for the recommendation about Perfect Disk. . . .

But I'm still not sure about the benefit of the separate partition. . . . If I have my OS and programs on one partition and my other data on another partition, will that improve performance somehow? If so, why?

tuskenraider · Jun 29, 2007

Revivalist said:
But I'm still not sure about the benefit of the separate partition. . . . If I have my OS and programs on one partition and my other data on another partition, will that improve performance somehow? If so, why?

It could for reasons mentioned above about keeping the OS and program files close and to the edge of the disk and then leaving very little space for the data partition to follow right behind it. But yes, the problem then is the data will still be all over the place behind it. It's a poor man's way of trying to manipulate file placement really, but better than nothing. A program like Perfect Disk can do much better. And let me add, the gains to be had managing all this will be pretty small, unless you hard drive is a mess, but useful to extract every bit of performance left in your PC.

jt001 · Jul 2, 2007

Revivalist said:
I was thinking of going with four 150GB Raptors in RAID 0. The only thing I don’t like about that is that they're still not SATA II.

There is no such thing as sataII, and the raptors won't saturate sata1.5gbps so don't worry about that.

What are you going to be using this computer for?

Revivalist · Jul 6, 2007

jt001 said:
There is no such thing as sataII, and the raptors won't saturate sata1.5gbps so don't worry about that.

What are you going to be using this computer for?

A little of everything . . .
-- Gaming
-- Benchmarking
-- Video/music editing
-- Internet browsing
-- Staring at it and admiring how fast it is

Drew@PSU · Jul 6, 2007

jt001 said:
There is no such thing as sataII, and the raptors won't saturate sata1.5gbps so don't worry about that.

What are you going to be using this computer for?

I beg to differ, I use SATA 2 atm, my hard drives don't like being told they don't exist : ( But he is right, the raptors won't saturate the SATA1 interface anyway.

I envy your 4x RAID0 setup Revivalist, must be quite nice, as well as the panaflo fans ( I lost my hearing to the one on my XP-120 a long time ago ). Good stuff, can you post some HDTach screens maybe? ( If you can take some time away from admiring the speed of your rig

)

dylskee · Jul 6, 2007

Revivalist said:
-- Staring at it and admiring how fast it is

I love it, that's awesome!!! :beer:

imposter · Jul 7, 2007

WHat about those ram drive things?

El<(')>Maxi · Jul 7, 2007

Very fast but very limited in storage, currently 4GB. The new version will support 8GB but still runs @ 1.5GBS which is a limitation. I've recently read some server guys talking about ICH RAID and that it's as fast or faster than alot of enterprise class SCSI setups.

bing · Jul 7, 2007

El<(')>Maxi said:
Very fast but very limited in storage, currently 4GB. The new version will support 8GB but still runs @ 1.5GBS which is a limitation. I've recently read some server guys talking about ICH RAID and that it's as fast or faster than alot of enterprise class SCSI setups.

Like this ? -> Here

6 iRAMs in ICH9R RAID, average read 770 MB/s (transfer content of one full CD per second) and random access 0.1 ms (yep, almost zero)

El<(')>Maxi · Jul 7, 2007

LOL that guy is crazy, I love it!

** Help - What's the fastest HDD setup?

Member

Just Another Retired Moderator

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Registered

Member

Member

Member

Member

Blank Senior Member

Low Profile Senior

Blank Senior Member

Similar threads