What Hard Drive?
08 December 2002, 11:17 PM
#1
Well, seeing as how I've got to re-install W2K Server, re-create a domain/controller, active directory, exchange server etc etc etc on my new mobo setup ( 
) I thought I might get a couple of little HDDs to stick on the ATA133 RAID bit of it...
So - recomendations? I'm not going above 40Gb as I'm not a great user of space & want as cheap as poss... 7200 over 5400 would be nice but not the be-all/end-all & what difference in real world use?
Also, RAID-0 or RAID-1? I would be inclined for the mirroring option for data-security over speed but what else?
It'll be a cracking little machine when its finished - just wish it hadn't been necessary
) I thought I might get a couple of little HDDs to stick on the ATA133 RAID bit of it...So - recomendations? I'm not going above 40Gb as I'm not a great user of space & want as cheap as poss... 7200 over 5400 would be nice but not the be-all/end-all & what difference in real world use?
Also, RAID-0 or RAID-1? I would be inclined for the mirroring option for data-security over speed but what else?
It'll be a cracking little machine when its finished - just wish it hadn't been necessary
Thats why I run raid5 on scsi controllers
08 December 2002, 11:42 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as i know only Maxtor do ATA133 at the moment (last time i looked anyway 
)
I did some test in Sisoft sandra with some hard drives and found that a 5400 ATA133 hard drive was faster than a 7200 ATA100 hard drive , so if money is an issue the slower 133 will be faster.
of course a ATA7200 will be faster again but cost more.
Andy
)I did some test in Sisoft sandra with some hard drives and found that a 5400 ATA133 hard drive was faster than a 7200 ATA100 hard drive , so if money is an issue the slower 133 will be faster.
of course a ATA7200 will be faster again but cost more.
Andy
09 December 2002, 12:20 AM
#4
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Staffs
Posts: 23,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 December 2002, 07:57 AM
#5
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATA133 offers no performace benefit over ATA100 because PC's don't even utilise all the available bandwidth at ATA100. Your best bet will be an ATA100 7200 drive such as an IBM or Seagate.
09 December 2002, 10:01 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I have a Maxtor 40gb 7200rpm HD, cant fault it either 
Its very quiet (even with the case open) and definately one to look at if your thinking of getting a new H/D.
Tony
Its very quiet (even with the case open) and definately one to look at if your thinking of getting a new H/D.
Tony
Trending Topics
09 December 2002, 10:22 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The faster RPM can make a hue difference. If you compare the 10K to 15K drives then you can see throughput improvements of 90% providing the reads/writes are long serial reads - eg video playback. If you are mainly performing random access to the drive then a larger array controller cache would be much more benneficial - databases can be greatly improved by using the predictive read ahead functions of an array controller.
Raid 0 vs Raid 1. I'd be tempted to go for Raid 1 for availability reasons. Raid 0 IMHO should only be used for maximum performance when you don't need availability.
Phil
Raid 0 vs Raid 1. I'd be tempted to go for Raid 1 for availability reasons. Raid 0 IMHO should only be used for maximum performance when you don't need availability.
Phil
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
gazzawrx
Non Car Related Items For sale
13
17 October 2015 06:51 PM