WD RAPTOR (WD1500ADFD) matrix raid or Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (ST3250620A) m. raid

[-JJ-]

WD RAPTOR (WD1500ADFD) matrix raid or Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (ST3250620A) m. raid

Hi,

Since I only yesterday found out about intel matrix raid (I real most of the topics regarding it) and since I am upgrading from Opteron 165 to E6750 (from NF4 ultra to P35 chipset) I had some questions regarding it, so I am sure I understood it correctly.

my new CPU shall be C2D E6750 with asus P5K-E WIFI motherboard.

and if understood correctly: regular RAID 0 differs from matrix raid 0 that you can create RAID 0 and RAID 1 with only two physical disks, right?

like in regular raid 0 you would have 150gb raptors as one, but in matrix raid 0 you can have 20gb from each of two of the raptors as RAID 0, and the remaining 140gb from each of the raptors as RAID 1, right?

and how come the burst rate is so ridicuously high (1-2gb/s) in tests posted here, if regular RAID 0 (for example my RAID 0 on DFI ULTRA-D NF4 ULTRA, which had two maxtor 250gb, 16mb cache, 7,200rpm HDDs with NCQ enabled) tests show ~300mb/s?! is it only Matrix Raid? what else does the trick? jumper settings? do you use NCQ (Enables/Disabled?)?

Do I have to remove jumpers from hard drives? You think that I could improve my current results on my DFI ULTRA-D NF4 ULTRA if i remove jumpers from two maxtor HDD's? is the ~300mb/s burst rate score only because it works in sata I mode?

And if raptors wouldnt be an option, which 250gb-320gb (16mb cache, 7200rpm) HDD's would you reccomend as the fastest around, considering that two are used in matrix RAID 0???

WD RE2 ? Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (ST3250410AS or ST3250620A)?

Does the performance of two 150gb raptors in matrix raid 0 + 1 is so drastically better than for example that of two 250gb ST3250620A in matrix raid 0 + 1 in real life?

 

[bing]

JJ, 1st, Wellcome to OcF !

and if understood correctly: regular RAID 0 differs from matrix raid 0 that you can create RAID 0 and RAID 1 with only two physical disks, right?

Yep, you're right !

like in regular raid 0 you would have 150gb raptors as one, but in matrix raid 0 you can have 20gb from each of two of the raptors as RAID 0, and the remaining 140gb from each of the raptors as RAID 1, right?

Ok, if you slice out 20GB "each" from your 75GB Raptor, then your Raid 0 will be 20 GB X 2 drives = 40GB.

While the rest of the space on "each" Raptor = 75 GB - 20 GB = 55 GB per drive, then on Raid 1 volume will be 55 GB since they're mirror / redundancy.

and how come the burst rate is so ridicuously high (1-2gb/s) in tests posted here, if regular RAID 0 (for example my RAID 0 on DFI ULTRA-D NF4 ULTRA, which had two maxtor 250gb, 16mb cache, 7,200rpm HDDs with NCQ enabled) tests show ~300mb/s?! is it only Matrix Raid? what else does the trick? jumper settings? do you use NCQ (Enables/Disabled?)?

Do I have to remove jumpers from hard drives? You think that I could improve my current results on my DFI ULTRA-D NF4 ULTRA if i remove jumpers from two maxtor HDD's? is the ~300mb/s burst rate score only because it works in sata I mode?

Yep, that burst speed is a Intel ICHxR's "signature".

You won't see real life performance ! Regarding the jumper setting, I think it is only applicable for Seagate 7200.10 drives or above if I'm not mistaken.

And if raptors wouldnt be an option, which 250gb-320gb (16mb cache, 7200rpm) HDD's would you reccomend as the fastest around, considering that two are used in matrix RAID 0???

WD RE2 ? Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (ST3250410AS or ST3250620A)?

Most of matrix raid users here are using Seagate because of the best bang for the buck, or the cheapest GB/$ and it's performance is not too bad.

WD drive's performance is better than Seagate.

Does the performance of two 150gb raptors in matrix raid 0 + 1 is so drastically better than for example that of two 250gb ST3250620A in matrix raid 0 + 1 in real life?

Yep, Raptor's seek time eats Seagate alive !

For real life performance ? It will really depends on how you use the computer, if you do a lot of media streaming, I believe you won't see night and day difference.

Hope this help.

 

[One Bull]

Nope, but if you game it would make a difference. But then again if you game alot you won't actually need raid in the first place

 

[-JJ-]

thanks a lot

 

[RangerXLT8]

Having used many different HDD from regular aTA 80pin 7200rpm to 320gb WDs to dual Raptors in RAID, dual Raptors makes for faster boot time and faster loading time of games, and generally a "Snappier" feeling.

 

[tuskenraider]

Having used many different HDD from regular aTA 80pin 7200rpm to 320gb WDs to dual Raptors in RAID, dual Raptors makes for faster boot time and faster loading time of games, and generally a "Snappier" feeling.

Yep, here's testing on an NF4 RAID controller, you may get more of an "improvement":

 

[-JJ-]

i have read through tons of review and tests and supposedly today WD RE2 (WD5000YS) and Seagate Barracuda SE (ST3750640NS) are the fast large capacity HDD's, however Saumsung Spintpoint T (25smt2HD501LJ) is the best price/performance HDD. Of course raptors beat them all, but raptors are expensive (gb/$)

So I have a hard time to decide on the setup of hdd's for my new E6750/Q6600 + ASUS PK5-E WIFI pc.

Probably I shall take either couple of the above mentioned Seagate Barracudas ES or WD RE2 and setup them in matrix raid, since couple of 150gb raptors would be waste of money. ES or RE2 in matrix raid will still give me great boot/write/read times, right?

Which system will boot faster: matrix raid of couple of RE2's or regular RAID 0 of RE'2s?

and one more thing: what about NCQ? do you keep it enabled/disabled?

 

[Warren G]

Question about the real life performance on Matrix Raid,

Would there be a big difference in real life performance on average gaming (i.e Bioshock, CnC3, STALKER) and regular computing (i.e word, IE, boot-ups, extracting large files, etc...)? I have some 80gb seagates in raid 0 right now but will upgrade to bigger drives 500gb seagate(s) when I change my system late this year. I was planning to go 2x 320gb, but dont need all that space so if I dont get a big performance difference in everyday computing than my current setup, I'll just save money and get 1 500gb hd. AFAIK, the speed burst helps with large file extraction/transfers, but not sure about others..

 

[tuskenraider]

Which system will boot faster: matrix raid of couple of RE2's or regular RAID 0 of RE'2s?

They'll boot the same.

and one more thing: what about NCQ? do you keep it enabled/disabled?

Disabled for desktop users.

AFAIK, the speed burst helps with large file extraction/transfers, but not sure about others..

Actually it's with small file transfers that are in the cache. A drive's mechanicals could never maintain burst speeds so the cache will run out almost instantly with a large file and the drive won't be able to keep it filled.