1X500GB or 2x250GB RAID-0?

which you were going to sell to me :p

Setting up a new system now with 2 80gig seagates 7200.10 and if i can get the raid set up i will also give my opinion on speed ie worth it or not.

Presently running a raptor in my main rig and it kills single drives so will be interesting to see which rig is faster :)
 
yea i was man til i ran 80 gig raid to test before i sold them

after i saw the performance of my raptors vs those 2 80 gig i could not go through with it man

the performance difference was insane
 
HenryJ said:
That is quite a thorough test there. Raptor did not perform as well as I had thought on the whole..
Click to expand...

Just remember that they tested using only 25GB partitions, which is not very practical, Vista install alone uses around that much :p

I doubt they'd get the same results when using full sized or at lease equal (to the Raptor) sized partition.
 
RAID0 is not worth it in my opinion, seeing as you are effectively doubling the risk of hardware failure. Regardless of backups being available, it's still alot of effort getting back to a point where you can work on the machine.

Maybe with 2 Raptors but most people don't want to spend that much on drives.

Why no one has suggested RAID5 is beyond me :confused:. You get the advantage of higher transfer rates and the security of being able to lose one drive without losing data, and it only requires 3 drives. Even better option would be RAID5 + Hotswop giving you the ability to lose 2 drives before failure, but this adds an additional drive requirement (And obviously most onboard controllers don't support it).

RAID5'ed Raptors, now we're talking !!! ;)
 
you dont double the risk of failure

you just risk losing info on 2 hdd's if one should fail, it does not make the disk more likely to fail

its alot of effort to redo your pc when your main single windows drive dies as well
 
killadoob said:
you dont double the risk of failure

you just risk losing info on 2 hdd's if one should fail, it does not make the disk more likely to fail

its alot of effort to redo your pc when your main single windows drive dies as well
Click to expand...

You don't "just risk losing info" as information in this case is everything. Failure of one drive in this instance makes the other drive obsolete until it's re-setup, so in essence it also fails, costing you time and effort to get back to a productive state again.

It's simple mathematics, lets assume the factory defect failure rate of Seagate drives to be 10% (which is probably not that far off from reality)

10% x 1 HDD = 10% chance
10% x 2 HDD = 20% chance

That's double the possibility of a failure occuring, and is a perfectly legitimate calculation seeing as you are combining two hard drives into one logical partition.
 
Also, arguing that a third hard disk could be used for backup is just silly, seeing as you might as well use RAID5 then, save yourself the possibility of having to reload should a failure occur while still enjoying the transfer rate increases.

Monetary cost is not always the only consideration, unproductive time can be just as damaging.
 
no dude your wrong

your raiding 2 drives to make 1 drive, so your using 1 drive, its the same % as using a single drive, since its basically a single drive

lets say i have 2 x 80gig in raid making a 160 part, my buddie has a 160 hdd single drive for windows

he has a 10% chance of his windows drive dying and so do i, i have been in the computer game for a very long time and have only ever seen 3 dead drives which where old

dont think seagate has a 10% failure, i think its more like 5%, if not less

doubt 10 in 100 drives are dying that seems very high
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
no dude your wrong

your raiding 2 drives to make 1 drive, so your using 1 drive, its the same % as using a single drive, since its basically a single drive

lets say i have 2 x 80gig in raid making a 160 part, my buddie has a 160 hdd single drive for windows

he has a 10% chances of his windows drive dying and so do i
Click to expand...

Yup, 100% correct there IMO.

I'm gonna read up a bit on RAID-5 and see if that's a feasible option. 3 drives doesn't sound too nice though. :(
 
killadoob said:
no dude your wrong

your raiding 2 drives to make 1 drive, so your using 1 drive, its the same % as using a single drive, since its basically a single drive

lets say i have 2 x 80gig in raid making a 160 part, my buddie has a 160 hdd single drive for windows

he has a 10% chance of his windows drive dying and so do i, i have been in the computer game for a very long time and have only ever seen 3 dead drives which where old

dont think seagate has a 10% failure, i think its more like 5%, if not less

doubt 10 in 100 drives are dying that seems very high
Click to expand...

You are making one logical drive, but you still have two physical drives. This concept is so stupifyingly simple, I can't understand how you don't get it, even after I showed you the math. OMW, ignorance truly is bliss.

If you've only seen 3 dead drives on your lifetime, you are either:
1) Working with a very small amount of drives
2) Been Rediculously lucky
3) Talking BS

I've been working in the ICT industry for a while, and we have ALOT of drives coming through the office on a daily basis. We see at least one drive fail every week. A few months ago the number skyrocketed when Seagate drives were failing at an alarming rate (as high as 1 in 5) and Seagate admitted there were production issues.

Once again, if you proclaim to be "in the business" you would have known about this.
 
For your assumption to be correct, the only cause of failure would be software errors, completely discounting hardware malfunctions, which is simply not true.

Taking into consideration your own estimate of drives having a 5% failure rate, meaning 1 in 20 drives fail due to hardware issues, that would mean you've only worked with 60 drives in your lifetime if only 3 have failed.
 
5% of drives failing does not mean that i will see 5%, it just means 5% fail, who gets those failed drives nobody knows

lol so everyone who deals with drives have exactly 5% failure rate?

dude your logic is not right man

your taking 2 drives and making them 1 logical drive, so you have 1 drive not 2

so if one fails you lose your raid array, the other drive is fine

so you still have a 5% failure, just like a guy running a single drive and having a failure, u dont double the risk

some ppl never see 5%, some ppl see 1% some ppl see 10%, how your saying i have only worked with 60 drives is beyond me lol

so if i buy 60 drives and you buy 60 drives we will both see exactly 5% fail

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats classic

again im going to say someone running raid 0 with 2 drives has exactly the same chance of losing his windows drive as someone who has a single drive

could u give me the batch number of the drives where this so called production problem happened

so your saying 1 in 5 seagate drives died

right now lets do this

lets take 10 drives of those bad production drives

lets say 1 guy runs raid 0 taking 2 drives and 8 ppl take single drives

now 2 of those drives are going to fail

that 1 raid guy has as much chance as the those 8 single drives of failing would you not agree?

out of those 9 ppl 2 are going to lose their windows drive

now think about it and try come up with a counter :)
also plz let me know which drive from seagate had a failure rate of 1 in 5, will check it out with my friend who is a manager at drive control :)
 
Last edited:
Hahaha.. My logic is just fine, yours on the other hand is severely lacking.

5% of drives failing does not mean that i will see 5%, it just means 5% fail, who gets those failed drives nobody knows

lol so everyone who deals with drives have exactly 5% failure rate?
Click to expand...
Statistically speaking most definately YES, if you work with a great enough quantity of drives over a period of time then you will see 5% (or very close to it) of them fail if that's the average failure rate for that period.

Just try and grasp the concept here, manufacturers produce thousands of drives, just because you didn't get a defective drive, does not change the odds of you getting one, the failure rate remains the same. If you were to purchase 20 drives at once, it's likely that one of them would be defective, if the failure rate were 5%. The only influence on the statistic is you buying small quantities over a period of time, ie the sample size is too small.

Granted, 60 drives used would be way too little a sample to infer from three failed drives, but three failed drives most certainly still indicates that you work with a very small population.

This is the most basic stats, tought in any university first year course.

your taking 2 drives and making them 1 logical drive, so you have 1 drive not 2
Click to expand...
Wow... you even deny it while saying it, un-be-lieve-able!! Don't know what whacky universe you live in, but the logical drive is a SOFTWARE configuration, not a HARDWARE configuration, at the end you still have two PHYSICAL DRIVES. Manufacturer failure rate measures HARDWARE failure, not SOFTWARE error. I can't make it any clearer than that.

so your saying 1 in 5 seagate drives died
right now lets do this
lets take 10 drives of those bad production drives
lets say 1 guy runs raid 0 taking 2 drives and 8 ppl take single drives
now 2 of those drives are going to fail
that 1 raid guy has as much chance as the those 8 single drives of failing would you not agree?
out of those 9 ppl 2 are going to lose their windows drive
now think about it and try come up with a counter
Click to expand...
So by your logic a person buying one lotto ticket has exactly the same chance of winning the lotto as someone buying one million lotto tickets?
So by your logic 2/10 is equal to 1/10. LOL!!! This is funny stuff!

Honestly I give up, it's like arguing with a coconut. Hard outer shell but hollow inside. You only see what you want to see.

What's next, are you going to argue with the statistical theory tought by just about every university worldwide?

ROFL!!!... Good luck talking to Drive Control about Seagate Hard Disk Drives, they only do Western Digital, and I know, I've been dealing with them since they opened their doors.
 
Last edited:
A consulting company, we do alot of work in the ICT industry, throughout the sectors, from government contracts to the mining industry to manufacturing and professional services. You name em, we probably service them ;)
 
I haven't read this whole thread but just want to say that my raid setup works like a bomb. I have a 64 bit PCI controller with 2 80 gig drives and a separate 80 gig drive for windows and programs. I work with video and animation files and have timed the tranfer rates, I get double the speed for the raid compared to the single (same drive). I also loaded some games on the raid and noticed during a lan meet that my system always loaded long before everyone elses. They were like WTF!:cool:


Edit: just read back a bit and definitely agree that double the drives means double the chance of loosing your info, I took a risk running raid but lucky for me no failures after 5 years. *touches wood*
 
Last edited:
dam said:
I haven't read this whole thread but just want to say that my raid setup works like a bomb. I have a 64 bit PCI controller with 2 80 gig drives and a separate 80 gig drive for windows and programs. I work with video and animation files and have timed the tranfer rates, I get double the speed for the raid compared to the single (same drive). I also loaded some games on the raid and noticed during a lan meet that my system always loaded long before everyone elses. They were like WTF!:cool:
Click to expand...

Which drives are you using for your RAID?

Seagates? If so, 7200.10 or 7200.11?
 
Surely it is better and safer and cheaper to just get a 500GB 7200.11 and have done with all this RAID debate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X