LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksMy Seagate Barracuda is about 6 months old and it whines rather badly when you access it (its a 120Gb)
I've heard the newer models are much quieter.
My Seagate Barracuda is about 6 months old and it whines rather badly when you access it (its a 120Gb)
I've heard the newer models are much quieter.
My raptors Click me to deathIf they die I will most likly move on to SCSI...
Edit: This may be off the topic alitle but at work today we got a new hier and he's a programer, and he told me that my raptor raid 0 array was stupid and that raid 1 is faster!How so?
But I do notice bad accese times of about 11 ms!
Last edited by myth; 21-06-2004 at 05:02 PM.
SCSI is even louder! My 10krpm SCSI drive doesn't need an activity light, I just get a phone call from seismic analysts whenever it's on an extended transfer task...Originally Posted by myth
My raptors Click me to death
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Hes wrong.Edit: This may be off the topic alitle but at work today we got a new hier and he's a programer, and he told me that my raptor raid 0 array was stupid and that raid 1 is faster!
Tell him to stick to his programming
I'll second that (although apparently raid 1 is faster at reading, never used it though and who really cares?)Hes wrong.
Tell him to stick to his programming
No it isn't. It can be faster than a single drive if implemented well, but isn't gonna be faster than RAID0 because of seek overhead.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
@ FunkyT
I have a seagate 7200.7 200gb S-ATA
Seagate are the only native sata drive on the market, raptors included. Be under no illusion that this makes them faster though.
They only have the sata connectors which is cool, but may be a prob if ur psu dont have it, or if you take it out to take to a mates comp. Problem solved with a £1 adapter.
Seagate ARE the quietest 200gb drive on the market, thanks to being the only 2-platter design @ 200gb. All others have to use three platters. Idle noise is silence. Seek noises are a little harsh if mounted in a 3 1/4 bay. Mounting in rubber or suspending in an elastic cradle removes these noises and renders the drive totally silent.
Komplett has these for £93 which is the cheapest i could find.
The hitachi sata is the quickest and second quietest, but for some perverse reason they dont do 200gb SATA....
Hope this helps...
and i fail to see how raid 1 could be quicker than even a single drive given that the second drive is merely a mirror and in my understanding is never 'read' for information in a raid0 fashion..... If i am wrong then please explain to me...
Ff
Oh yeah, and of course SATA drives arent quicker than pata drives....it's just an interface......it doesn't speed the drives up.... it maxes at 150mb/s rather than 133mb/s......even raid 0 arrays dont burst read above 100... (maybe quad raptors....)
but they is the future aint they....
I just pray that xp SP2 has native support for sata so yo dont have to faff around with floppy disks..... prob not though..
Last edited by funnelhead; 21-06-2004 at 06:42 PM.
Do you think when Jesus comes back..... he ever wants to see another cross.......? *{God bless you Bill}
.::HomeServer::.
#Dual 50W Xeons @2.5Ghz, 16GB, 34TB DrivePool, UPS#
#Plex on all the screens#
#Squeezeplay on all the Jogglers#
My Hexus Trust
My Items for sale
Alright, well I did say apparently. I can be quite confusing with all the different opinions coming from various people.
Well, I believe you now Kez as you seem to be one of the brainiest people on Hexus (in my eyes anyway)
Better explaination that "no, raid 0 is faster" or "raid 1 is faster" etc
Indeed, it would seem there are a lot of conflicting opinions.
However, think of it like this: In RAID1, even if both drives are used to retreive the data, the full data is on both drives. So, presuming the data is contiguous, each drive must read a chunk, skip a chunk, read a chunk, skip a chunk etc. However, in RAID0, the data is halved across the drives. So making the same presumption of contiguous data, the read heads can just read off all the data in one go while the RAID controller/software reassembles it.
If somebody has information to the contrary, I'd be pleased to see it, as I've never really seen any definitive testing on this, so I'm going from what I know.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
(found on random website via the magic of google
RAID 0 characteristics & advantages
RAID 0 implements a striped disk array, the data is broken down into blocks and each block is written to a separate disk drive
I/O performance is greatly improved by spreading the I/O load across many channels and drives
Best performance is achieved when data is striped across multiple controllers with only one drive per controller
No parity calculation overhead is involved
Very simple design
Easy to implement
RAID 0 disadvantages
Not a "True" RAID because it is NOT fault-tolerant
The failure of just one drive will result in all data in an array being lost
RAID 0 recommended applications
Video Production and Editing
Image Editing
Any application requiring high bandwidth
RAID 1 Characteristics & advantages
One Write or two Reads possible per mirrored pair
Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks
100% redundancy of data means no rebuild is necessary in case of a disk failure, just a copy to the replacement disk
Transfer rate per block is equal to that of a single disk
Under certain circumstances, RAID 1 can sustain multiple simultaneous drive failures
Simplest RAID storage subsystem design
RAID 1 disadvantages
Highest disk overhead of all RAID types (100%) - inefficient
Typically the RAID function is done by system software, loading the CPU/Server and possibly degrading throughput at high activity levels. Hardware implementation is strongly recommended
May not support hot swap of failed disk when implemented in "software"
RAID 1 recommended applications
Accounting
Payroll
Financial
Any application requiring very high availability
FunkyT - you should have had one of these with your motherboard (i know i did) still have mine if its ever required
right....all that typing has given me a powerful thirst - i'm off to watch the football
if it ain't broke...fix it till it is
{Oh yeah, and of course SATA drives arent quicker than pata drives....it's just an interface......it doesn't speed the drives up.... it maxes at 150mb/s rather than 133mb/s......even raid 0 arrays dont burst read above 100... (maybe quad raptors....)}
Sorry! But my raptors Bust at 139 MB/sSustaned is at 109 for read!
Bow befor my mighty raptors
I'd give my backing to seagate Serial ATA drives over any other as Seagates are indeed true SATA and do not use bridging chips like many of the other drive makers, and seeing as Seagate are 1 of the founding members of http://www.serialata.org/ and here is a link to why choose seagate over another model ;
http://www.seagate.com/products/inte...a/whysata.html
Hope this helps
Lee
Many thanks to everyone who replied - much appreciated!I'd give my backing to seagate Serial ATA drives over any other as Seagates are indeed true SATA and do not use bridging chips like many of the other drive makers, and seeing as Seagate are 1 of the founding members of http://www.serialata.org/ and here is a link to why choose seagate over another model ;
http://www.seagate.com/products/inte...a/whysata.html
Hope this helps
Lee
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
