Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Storage (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/)
-   -   Wd 640gb Raid (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/11671-wd-640gb-raid.html)

miggs78 November 10, 2008 06:19 AM

Wd 640gb Raid
 
Hi Guys, I recently bought 2 WD 640GB drives, just am confused between how to setup a RAID on them really.

I currently have a WD 250GB SATA drive with windows in it..

System specs in Sig..

Thanks.

Eagle Eye November 10, 2008 01:09 PM

Miggs is your intention to migrate your windows installation to the new drives or do want the raid array to be for games, applications, and multimedia?

If you have a chance to hook a single one up would you mind doing a quick HD tach or HD Tune benchmark, I'd like to see the performance and it would be greatly appreciated.

EE

miggs78 November 10, 2008 06:50 PM

Do you want one on a single drive, or RAID.
Right now, I am almost unsure if I should leave Windows on the 250GB, and use the RAID for all other programs and stuff.

edit: EE these are for one HDD from both HDD tune and HDD tach.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...8e71fe9f92.jpg

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...8e71fcf955.jpg

Eagle Eye November 10, 2008 07:45 PM

Thanks so much!!

I'll never know why my drives report such a high random access time. It goes to show how inconsistent these benchmarks are the same drive and it reports completely different burst rate results.

EE

Oversized Rooster November 10, 2008 09:28 PM

Here are benchmarks for my two WD6401AALS HDs:

WD6401AALS HD 01:
http://gergin.net/posts/HD%20Benchma...0D%20v2.55.jpg

WD6401AALS HD 02:
http://gergin.net/posts/HD%20Benchma...0E%20v2.55.jpg

miggs78 November 10, 2008 11:03 PM

No worries EE.. Not too much difference btw the 16mb and 32mb cache drives.

Back on the topic, any help please ?.. :)

Oversized Rooster November 11, 2008 03:02 PM

In terms of performance, the WD2500KS (and WD2500AAKS) are far slower drives than the WD6400AAKS or WD6401AALS.

Personally, I don't like the idea of placing critical data on a RAID0 array because if something happens, the data will be lost.

If you MUST do RAID0, then keep your important files and the OS on the WD2500 to be safe and RAID the dual WD6400 drives.

How about using one of the WD6400 drives for OS, and the other for storage? The WD2500, you can sell off.

miggs78 November 11, 2008 03:24 PM

Sell off.. Man that drive has been given a usage of its life time lol.. I'm lucky it is still alive. The other 3 family members passed away.. I had a RAID of 4 of those 250gb's.. and 3 family members passed away lol..

Well.. I hear ya Oversized, I thought of the same, I wish I had a bigger drive like a 750GB.. that I would use for the OS and criticial stuff, and the other RAID drives for games and stuff.. But $$$ is tight.

lemonlime November 11, 2008 03:51 PM

You have a few options if you plan to use Intel Matrix Raid. I have a pair of WD6400's and run a 640GB raid 0 partition for my OS and apps as well as a 320GB raid 1 partition for storage. As mentioned, I'd definitely consider the 6400's for your OS--it'll be much quicker.

miggs78 November 11, 2008 11:30 PM

Taking all the very good points you guys are throwing, I came to a conclusion that I will leave my Windows on the 250GB SATA drive, and setup RAID0 for everything else, and then when I have saved up enough for a 640GB or 750GB I will just re-install windows on the new drive.

So please help, thank you.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 AM.