I was wondering, what system performs the best? A 10k RPM disk or 2 7200 disks in RAID 0? Right now, I would go for the RAID 0 option (and an external 1TB disk for regular backups) since these 10k rpm disks are way too expensive (215€ for 150 Gb 10k, 44€ for 160 Gb 7.2k)

___________________
www.dezma.be

Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/dezmamusic

what exactly do you want to use it for?

im not working with huge samples but my cheap samsung 7200 disk never let me down. also i heard the 10000 rpm disks should be pretty noisy.

Audio production, games, internet, office, ..

___________________
www.dezma.be

Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/dezmamusic

Funny I just bought 2xSATA2 500GB Western Digital 7200 which I'm playing on either using RAID 0 (striping) or 1 (mirroed).

Mainly for backup perposes if a drive fails, although it wouldnt protect against a corrupt file as it would copy accross to the other drive but that would be easier to fix.

Go for RAID which is cheaper and if you have SATA2 its going to be faster, even SATA is fast, then again, if you already have a backup solution stick with RAID 0.

___________________
http://soundcloud.com/drewwihl

Last edited by daeus on Sep-04-2007 at 15:37

RAID 0 is faster and cheaper than a single 10,000rpm drive lol.
Funny how that works... Two drives cheaper than one!

Make sure you backup regularly though. RAID 0 means you're twice as likely to lose data due to drive failure. IMO it isn't worth it. I ran RAID for many years, but the difference is negligable most of the time. I'm currently running one 320GB drive. My system seems to be more stable too.

Why the fuck would you want to run a RAID-0 array on the same disk you have all your music stored on?

If either disk makes a write error then you will lose everything. I wouldn't even bother unless you were doing a realtime backup.

Which would involve another 2 hard drives mirroring the 2 striped drives you already have. And I suppose if you are using this many disks you might as well just run a RAID-10 array and be done with it.

If you have an NVidia mobo or something marketted for home users then you can probably only run RAID-1, 0 or 01. In that event run a 01 array but you still need 4 drives.

If you could run a RAID-5 array with 3 drives do that.

Last edited by Derivative on Sep-04-2007 at 15:17

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Why the fuck would you want to run a RAID-0 array on the same disk you have all your music stored on?

If you ran RAID 1 any error would copy over also. I think im going to go for mirroed because when a drive fails completley you totally buggered compared to if it just has a corrupt windows file or something.

___________________
http://soundcloud.com/drewwihl

Eh? RAID-1 writes everything twice. If it makes a write error on 1 drive it retrieves the correct data from the other drive instead. Its basically a realtime backup.

For the same write error to occur on both disks at the same time would be rare. But if that happens the array fails yeah. Its still better than RAID-0 if your data is valuable. Even if it costs twice as much drive space and isn't as fast.

RAID-5 would be even better because it does parity checks against every bit thats written to every drive in the array.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Eh? RAID-1 writes everything twice. If it makes a write error on 1 drive it retrieves the correct data from the other drive instead. Its basically a realtime backup. For the same write error to occur on both disks at the same time would be rare. But if that happens the array fails yeah. Its still better than RAID-0 if your data is valuable. Even if it costs twice as much drive space and isn't as fast. RAID-5 would be even better because it does parity checks against every bit thats written to every drive in the array.

Agreed. I have all my music on a server with a 4 disk RAID 5 array for this exact reason. Its worth every penny to protect the investment of your hard work.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Eh? RAID-1 writes everything twice. If it makes a write error on 1 drive it retrieves the correct data from the other drive instead. Its basically a realtime backup. For the same write error to occur on both disks at the same time would be rare. But if that happens the array fails yeah. Its still better than RAID-0 if your data is valuable. Even if it costs twice as much drive space and isn't as fast. RAID-5 would be even better because it does parity checks against every bit thats written to every drive in the array.

Ah my freind actually told me this lol, thats kool RAID 1 it is then.

___________________
http://soundcloud.com/drewwihl