Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Storage (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/)
-   -   Does SATA III in RAID 0 (on non-SSD) out performing SATA II in RAID 0 (on non-SSD)? (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/33884-does-sata-iii-raid-0-non-ssd-out-performing-sata-ii-raid-0-non-ssd.html)

SmallWhiteDragon July 3, 2010 07:55 PM

Does SATA III in RAID 0 (on non-SSD) out performing SATA II in RAID 0 (on non-SSD)?
 
I am looking to build a new gaming rig, and sadly SSD and Velociraptor drives are out of my price range. So I am looking to get either two WD Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb drives or two WD Caviar Black WD1501FASS 1.5TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb and place them into a RAID 0 array.

I just don't know what will give me the best performance when using RAID 0, SATA III or SATA II. From what read, there really isn't much difference between SATA II and III on non-SSD when using single drive, unfortunately I haven't found any information about placing them in a RAID 0 array.

gingerbee July 4, 2010 04:39 AM

I can not speak from experience. but the sata3 drives barely can take advantage of the connection so i don't see them doing much better in overall performance not yet anywho. jmo not facts

dustin1706 July 4, 2010 07:18 AM

I've not personally tried this, but i would say that there is no reason for SATA3 with that hard drive.

Firstly, if you are running RAID0, then obviously you are looking for sheer speed. Why not go with 2TB drives? The denser platters = faster reads, writes and RATs. Even as a max burst read you won't see 250Mbps let alone 3Gbps so I really can't see why it would help.

Check out some of the reviews here on HWC. The 2TB blacks match the raptors for everything except RAT, but no HDD is in the range of a decent SSD.

grinder July 4, 2010 07:23 AM

the difference is moot. Honestly, it's a greater significance that your raid controller (if you are using one), supports SATA III before you start shopping for the hard drives. I've seen SATA II raid controllers error out when SATA III drives were used.

supaflyx3 July 4, 2010 08:01 AM

NCIX.com - Buy OCZ Onyx Series Indilinx 32GB 2.5IN SATA2 Solid State Disk Flash Drive SSD - OCZSSD2-1ONX32G In Canada.
get that + 1 2TB drive and you'll be set, cheaper too.

SmallWhiteDragon July 4, 2010 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dustin1706 (Post 399477)
I've not personally tried this, but i would say that there is no reason for SATA3 with that hard drive.

Firstly, if you are running RAID0, then obviously you are looking for sheer speed. Why not go with 2TB drives? The denser platters = faster reads, writes and RATs. Even as a max burst read you won't see 250Mbps let alone 3Gbps so I really can't see why it would help.

Check out some of the reviews here on HWC. The 2TB blacks match the raptors for everything except RAT, but no HDD is in the range of a decent SSD.

WOW!!! Thanks everyone for all of your insights. The WD Caviar Black WD2001FASS 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb hard drive that looks really promising. Unfortunately I don't the funds for two of these drives. I've budgeted about $200 for storage. So would it be best to go with one 2TB hard drive or two 1.5TB in a RAID 0 array?

dustin1706 July 4, 2010 03:57 PM

I would go with a single black 2GB. When you go RAID0, you have twice the chance of losing your data, because if either HDD dies you lose everything.

SmallWhiteDragon July 4, 2010 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dustin1706 (Post 399646)
I would go with a single black 2GB. When you go RAID0, you have twice the chance of losing your data, because if either HDD dies you lose everything.

Well I am mostly concerned with performance, I have a 1TB hard drive that I'll be using for backups. So a one 2TB hard drive will out perform two 1.5TB in a RAID 0 array?

dustin1706 July 4, 2010 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmallWhiteDragon (Post 399749)
Well I am mostly concerned with performance, I have a 1TB hard drive that I'll be using for backups. So a one 2TB hard drive will out perform two 1.5TB in a RAID 0 array?

If Gaming is your primary performance concern, then RAID0 will provide almost no benefit. You should get near 2x the read/write speeds, but your RATs will barely change. For gaming, this will mean almost nothing. Remember that once you are in a game, the HDD does almost nothing. The CPU, RAM, and GPU handle all the heavy work.

Check out this toms hardware test. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...NG,1705-6.html

They basically gained 0.2 - 0.8 FPS by going to RAID0. Now considering that the 2TB is faster than the 1.5s, the difference will be even less. I would not call .5 FPS worth cutting HDD reliability in half. RAID0 will also use up a little bit of CPU power as well (very little).

I would personally recommend going with a single 2TB drive over 1.5TB RAID0.

Or, better yet, like supafly says, get a small SSD and a 2tb drive and you will have the best performance. The SSDs have such significantly smaller RATs that you will be able to see a difference in loadtimes of apps and games.

TDX-KID July 3, 2011 07:46 AM

i dont know enough to disagree with what you're all saying lol, or agree to it :haha: but as far as sata 2 goes, i have experimented with sata 2 non raid hdds and sata 2 raid 0 with 2 hdds, and i know from experience that using 2 disks was faster during game loading times. im not worried about gaining fps from my hdd set up cuz i am using a radeon hd6970, but i was very surprised to read that someone had said that using 2 sata 3 wd black caviar hdds in raid 0 wont do much more for loading times than a single 2tb wd caviar.. i was actually looking forwards to getting 2 sata 3 wd's in raid. im not too worried about spending the extra cash on the hdds If they were to outperform a single wd black non raid. im not sure that i want to buy an ssd now because you still have to spend 3 dollars per gig on an ssd :shok: for a good one anyways. but if i were to spend money on 2 wd blacks 2tb drives in raid, id be looking at a 4tb raid which i can get for round 300$ as opposed to a 64gb or 128gb fairly in this stage of the game cheap ssd. as far as price per gig anyways.
also, if anyone can shed some light if im off my rocker please do :haha:
a friend of mine who was really good with computers once told me that a lot of ssd's lose performance over the period of 6 months to a year, but he told me that one of the best ssd's for that would be the intel x25m or something like it, anyways im a lost case please help!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 PM.