Just speccing up a PC for myself, and just want to check something.
Ive specced in 2xSATA300 40Gb drives because between the NAS and the USB caddy ill still have an extra 600Gb on top of the storage in the PC Itself, thats provided i dont use the existing 160Gb of IDE133 storage somewhere else (Might be turning it into a server).
is there actually an advantage in spending the extra on more disks when im not going to be using them? my thinking is itll be just as quick, but the cost is lower, meaning i can get something like a 1950Pro, or more RAM instead.
Edit : reason i say disagreement is one of the other lads is saying i should be going for 250Gb+ drives. it seems like needless extra cost to me.
Usually, bigger drives means the data is packed closer together. This makes a higher capacity drive read the data quicker because of the increased data per track. You will also gain the advantage of more recent technology. TBH a 250GB drive isnt that much more expensive than a 40GB one so its worthwhile on that alone. Unless you fancy caging a pair of raptors in your system? (which would be more expensive still) Bigger drives are faster
ill be setting them up as RAID, i view single drives as worthless in a higher-end rig. Im also rather restricted to price. If i can set the thing up as RAIDed SATA300 instead of a single SATA 300 ill be looking a significant performance boost anyway.
A pair of 40GBs would be limited in capacity anyway. Better have a larger pair. Unless you get them for something stupid like a twenty each.
Sata 300 drives are very quick anyway, even as a single.
Quote from: SeriousA pair of 40GBs would be limited in capacity anyway. Better have a larger pair. Unless you get them for something stupid like a twenty each.
Sata 300 drives are very quick anyway, even as a single.
I dont care about the capacity, ive 400Gb in the NAS and 200 in the USB. Plus if i want to i can drop the exisiting 160Gb of IDE drives ive got raided atm the desktop box into a server.
Im just figuring that the smaller drives wouldnt give me any performance hit to speak of in a RAID config. I wouldnt bother with a single drive because they are still one hell of a bottleneck. 40Gb drives are only ~Ã,£20 anyhow, so rather than stump up for a 250Gb+ drive i can get 80Gb of RAID instead. Plenty of remote storage means i keep bugger all on either the lappy or the desktop anyhow these days, even the My Documents folders are pointing at the NAS box.
Look, you have already decided. No matter what I or anyone else says you are going to argue you are right. TBH there is no point in continuing.
Just do what you think is best.
i was actually hoping someone would point me in the direction of some form of pre-done comparison. Ive not been to the shop yet, and if there are some decent speed benefits over a mid-high end graphics card ill go for that instead.
I was making the point that storage capacity doesnt matter to me. there is about 200Gb of storage on the NAS, and the USB caddy is running at 70Gb full. Hell id use 20Gb if they where faster, its just a pity I cant afford a set of Raptors!
got 6 x 60gig sata 2 drives here all in raid zero
like you said, one (or maybe 2) single big drives would have probably been cheaper, but raid zero rocks and you know it :p
bonus with raid zero is you can buy some nice quiet drives and there still nice and fast :D