1 raptor vs sata raid0

[K1ll1nT1m3]

1 raptor vs sata raid0?

Would I be better off getting a single 36g raptor for the OS on this pc and using the SATA as a backup? Or should I get another SATA and use both SATAs in RAID0? ( i have one sata and one pata in raid0 now )

I know the raptor wont be close to the raid setup as far as transfer size goes. Would it be able to offset that with the faster access times? Or which will show more difference to me, transfer size or access times?

Edit: sorry, I know this has been asked over and over. I just need to know which is better, access times or data transfer rate?

 

[deathman20]

Hmmm thats a good question. Well from me running a Raid0 before with 2 60gigs (2mb cache) I could boot into windows in around 40 seconds with everything loaded. With the Raptor I can boot into windows and have everything loaded in under 50 seconds.

Though things seem to open faster when I'm up in windows too. Then again I do have a hyperthreading CPU now.

BTW when I loaded the OS I have the following programs running
Norton System Works 2003
Zone Alarm Pro
Sound Card Thingy
Custom Desktop Setup (windowblinds)
Temp Sensor Software

Total bootup eats around 170mb of ram.

 

[K1ll1nT1m3]

After reading some info in the forum at storagereview, im wanting to lean toward the raid0. The performance from the last test ( production drives ) doesnt seem all that great.

I still need more info though. thanks

 

[K1ll1nT1m3]

After reading this , I may have to go with a raptor. Im still a bit confused. Am I correct in thinking that most files are smaller than the cluster size, so access time would be better than data transfer?

 

[bkny1055]

the info i have read is the the Raid 0 using 2 Maxtor DiamondMax9 120gig drivers tested faster or as fast as the Raptor drives could be wrong but i read it on several sites back when i was looking to build my new system. this is the set up i have so i know they are fast drives in Raid 0 plus more drive space..but on the other hand i have never owned Raptor drives so i cant really compare them i just know my drives are or seem fast

 

[K1ll1nT1m3]

Well, I got a Raptor. I must say, Im not that impressed. I just got XP installed a few minutes ago. My raid0 has seemed faster in almost every thing I have done so far. I guess Ill run some benchies and see what the numbers look like.

Anyway, thanks for all the help everyone. ( now I want to know what 3 7200s would have done in raid0 )

Edit: Ran my XP updates. I feel I need to clarify some. I am impressed, for a single drive. Its almost as fast as the raid0 was. I would love to see a raid0 of these drives. But, if storage space is of any concern, I would have stick with 7200s in raid0.

 

[lansens]

I just got my Raptor last week and I'm never going back. In fact I intend to run raid0 when I get my hands on another.

 

[OSUmaxx]

If this is your only PC and file security is important to you, you should have at least one drive that is not in a RAID 0 array so you can make backups. I'd recommend 2 drives in RAID0 and an IDE backup drive.

If that isn't an option and you don't care about your data as much (you backup regularly), I'd go with 2 drives in RAID 0.

I have a gaming computer with 2 raptors in RAID 0, but I make backups of anything I want to save, and the rest I can just reinstall if needed.

 

[dew042]

raid 0 with raptors gets me into windows in about 20-25 seconds. it baffles me.

dew.

 

[K1ll1nT1m3]

I still cant justify a Raptor. If you got 3 80g 7200rpm HDDs and put them in a RAID0, I think it would be faster than a pair of 36g Raptors in RAID0. They would be about the same price if you do some shopping. Plus, you would have alot more storage space.

Yes, one of the first things I have learned was to back up important stuff ( also settings ) to a removable disk. On top of that, I also have my OS imaged to help speed installs.

My raid0 will also get into windows in 30 secs. Most new drives by themselfs can come pretty close to that. I do not think that is a very good way to compare drives.

The only reason I would recomend a Raptor would be, if the user for some reason wouldnt do a RAID0, or if they were really worried about a warrenty.

I guess I will keep it for my other PC ( I also have data backed up on it as well ). But for my gaming PC, its going to be 2 more sata Maxtors. ( total price would still be cheaper than 2 74g raptors ) I cant wait to see the speed of 4 SATA 120g Maxtors in RAID0. 480 gigs of space, limited by the pci bus. Sounds like a problem I would like, hehe.

 

[everclock]

The new 72GB raptors are even faster, and a pair of them is raid0 is 144GB's of pure speed.

Any1 planning on getting one/two/(three ) of theses any time soon?

 

[tuskenraider]

If you got 3 80g 7200rpm HDDs and put them in a RAID0, I think it would be faster than a pair of 36g Raptors in RAID0.

While this might be true, there is a common belief that more drives in a stripped RAID setup increases by the same amount with each drive.........actually, the speed increase drops dramatically with each additional drive.

 

[Vio1]

I recently got 2 raptors and put them into raid. I had 2 80gb se wd hdds in raid-o and the performance was good, however with the raptors its so much better: here are some of my stats:
HDtach benchmark:
2 80gb wd hdd in raid:14.9ms access time, max read speed: 80mb/s, min read speed: 7mb/s, average read speed: 55mb/s
1 raptor drive: 8.4ms access time, max read speed: 76mb/s,min read speed: 23mb/s, average read speed: 48mb/s
2 36.7gb raptors in raid: 8.8ms access time. max read speed:121mb/s, min read: 49mb/s, average read speed: 94mb/s


If i were you Id get 1 raptor (if you cant afford 2) casue the average read speed is similair to the 80gb raid 7200rpm drives, plus you get almost half the access time which makes everything so lively and springy in windows.

 

[Deathknight]

Personally I think you are better going off with the 1 raptor if you don't need all that extra space. You have a better upgrade path going with raptors in raid 0 down the road compared to adding additional 7200 rpm drives to the existing raid 0 array.

 

[pkrew]

I have to agree with Deathknight. The 72G in a raptor raid is plenty of space IMHO and the speed is hard to give up once you have it.

 

[JML]

Are these drives louder than most 7200rpm drives? And also, I notice newegg as listing some mobo's as having SATA RAID, and others as having SATA RAID 150- what does that mean, and is one better than the other?

 

[caRpetbomBer]

Does anyone know if they made a new version of the 36gig hard drive but with new bearings so the thing is quiet.

 

[raven]

Are these drives louder than most 7200rpm drives? And also, I notice newegg as listing some mobo's as having SATA RAID, and others as having SATA RAID 150- what does that mean, and is one better than the other?

Yes, these drives are louder then most 7200 drives because of the higher spindle speed and the lack of FDB's

The 72Gig raptors tho have FDB's which make them quieter the 36 gig raptors (unless they have made 36gig raptors with FDB's )

Does anyone know if they made a new version of the 36gig hard drive but with new bearings so the thing is quiet.

I sure hope they have, but i dont knwo for sure. Maybe we wills tart hearing about it soon? you could email WD and ask them if they have or are planning to.

raven

 

[K1ll1nT1m3]

I dont see the raptor being that loud. My SATA maxtor is louder than my raptor.

I think the 150 on the one board is just an added spec. The first gen of SATA is all suppost to be standardized to 150mbs ( per cable ). Its pretty useless ( right now ) since you can only have one drive per SATA cable and most drives out now are not even close to that transfer rate. I dont think a 74g raptor could use the 150mbs transfer that SATA supports, Maybe some drives down the road will be able to max it out?

Wasnt the 36g raptor suppost to be redone in the summer?

 

[deathman20]

The new 36gig raptor i heard was suppose to be revamped in spring. Could be mistaken but thats what I heard.