Raptor or RAID?

I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive
(will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
and set up a RAID 0
The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120.
Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
I'm just a game player (C&C3).

Frodo schrieb:
> I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
> I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive
> (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
> But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
> drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
> and set up a RAID 0
> The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120.
> Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
> I'm just a game player (C&C3).
>
>

While RAID 0 micht (or might noct) be faster than a raptor, it is
definately NOT better. RAID 0 has a 100% better chance for drive failure
than a single drive...

Personally, I'm using a raptor as boot drive and two "regular"
SATA-drives (RAID 1) as data drive & (manual) backup for the raptor.

Just my two cents...

Jesco

Previously Frodo <No_spam_I@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
> I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive
> (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
> But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
> drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
> and set up a RAID 0
> The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120.
> Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
> I'm just a game player (C&C3).

Well, I don't think you will see much speed improvement either way.
Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the
bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much.
However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable.

SKeepo the 300GB disk and invest the money in backup media.
BTW, one thing that can help is to put the swap-file onto the
raptor (raport as second disk) and use the rest of it as backup
space. Better solution here is more RAM.

Arno

Arno Wagner schrieb:

> Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the
> bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much.
> However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable.

Startup time on my machine (after MB boot, that is) has increased
considerably (about 15% I'd say) with the raptor.
Yes, temperature is an issue which can be dealt with.
Noise is not. I'm running a silent PC and am unable to hear the drive.
In fact, the only noise I hear from my PC is the CD/DVD-drive...

Jesco

"Jesco Lincke" <ichwill@keine.mail> wrote in message news:f0hu7c$fjg$1@online.de
> Frodo schrieb:
> > I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
> > I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive
> > (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
> > But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
> > drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
> > and set up a RAID 0
> > The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120.
> > Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
> > I'm just a game player (C&C3).
> >
>
> While RAID 0

> micht (or might noct)

Is this you babblebot?

> be faster than a raptor, it is definately NOT better.

Wotunidjut.
'Better' than what: Obviously depends on his definition of 'better'.

> RAID 0 has a 100% better chance for drive failure than a single drive...

Nope.

>
> Personally,

Yerunidjut.

> I'm using a raptor as boot drive and two "regular" SATA-
> drives (RAID 1) as data drive & (manual) backup for the raptor.

> Just my two cents...

And not worth even that.

>
> Jesco

I'm already at 2GBs of memory.

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:593p05F2j6ccfU1@mid.individual.net...
> Previously Frodo <No_spam_I@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
>> I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot
>> drive
>> (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
>> But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
>> drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
>> and set up a RAID 0
>> The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for
>> $115-$120.
>> Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
>> I'm just a game player (C&C3).
>
> Well, I don't think you will see much speed improvement either way.
> Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the
> bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much.
> However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable.
>
> SKeepo the 300GB disk and invest the money in backup media.
> BTW, one thing that can help is to put the swap-file onto the
> raptor (raport as second disk) and use the rest of it as backup
> space. Better solution here is more RAM.
>
> Arno

Folkert Rienstra schrieb:
> "Jesco Lincke" <ichwill@keine.mail> wrote in message news:f0hu7c$fjg$1@online.de
>> Frodo schrieb:
>>> I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
>>> I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive
>>> (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
>>> But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
>>> drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
>>> and set up a RAID 0
>>> The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120.
>>> Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
>>> I'm just a game player (C&C3).
>>>
>> While RAID 0
>
>> micht (or might noct)
>
> Is this you babblebot?
>
>> be faster than a raptor, it is definately NOT better.
>
> Wotunidjut.
> 'Better' than what: Obviously depends on his definition of 'better'.
>
>> RAID 0 has a 100% better chance for drive failure than a single drive...
>
> Nope.
>
>> Personally,
>
> Yerunidjut.
>
>> I'm using a raptor as boot drive and two "regular" SATA-
>> drives (RAID 1) as data drive & (manual) backup for the raptor.
>
>> Just my two cents...
>
> And not worth even that.
>
>> Jesco

Oh, so I did make it into your spam-list...
Was kind of starting to miss you.

Welcome back to the "most stupid poster ever contest", Folkert!

Previously Jesco Lincke <ichwill@keine.mail> wrote:
> Arno Wagner schrieb:

>> Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the
>> bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much.
>> However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable.

> Startup time on my machine (after MB boot, that is) has increased
> considerably (about 15% I'd say) with the raptor.

Increased??? I would say the raptor should be a little bit faster.
Still, since 15% is about the margin were you subjectively start to
notice something, it is not really significant. There might be
something seriously wrong eith the disk, though.

> Yes, temperature is an issue which can be dealt with.
> Noise is not. I'm running a silent PC and am unable to hear the drive.
> In fact, the only noise I hear from my PC is the CD/DVD-drive...

So they have gotten better. Good to know.

Arno

Frodo wrote:

> I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
> I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive
> (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM).
> But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard
> drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung)
> and set up a RAID 0
> The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120.
> Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB
> I'm just a game player (C&C3).


get the WD Raptor 150GB for your
new boot drive, and use one or both
of the others as "secondary" drives

use Acronis True Image 9.0 to clone
the current boot drive

bill

Arno Wagner schrieb:
> Previously Jesco Lincke <ichwill@keine.mail> wrote:
>> Arno Wagner schrieb:
>
>>> Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the
>>> bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much.
>>> However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable.
>
>> Startup time on my machine (after MB boot, that is) has increased
>> considerably (about 15% I'd say) with the raptor.
>
> Increased??? I would say the raptor should be a little bit faster.
> Still, since 15% is about the margin were you subjectively start to
> notice something, it is not really significant. There might be
> something seriously wrong eith the disk, though.
>
>> Yes, temperature is an issue which can be dealt with.
>> Noise is not. I'm running a silent PC and am unable to hear the drive.
>> In fact, the only noise I hear from my PC is the CD/DVD-drive...
>
> So they have gotten better. Good to know.
>
> Arno

Sorry, should have been decreased of course. I had written "boot speed
increased" before, but rephrased it. Obviously not enough of the sentence