PDA

View Full Version : Raid Arrays Sata vs Ata



camcamnz
11-03-2004, 05:07 PM
hey all,
i am desperately running out of hard drive space on my computer, so i am going to get a new hdd, now my motherboard has raid and sata raid controllers on it, so what i was going to do was buy a pair of 200gig sata seagate barracuda's and put them in a raid-0 array,
but when i asked my supplier about getting them in for me, he said that it would probably be cheaper to get four 120gig ata hdd's and put them all in a raid-0 array,

now my question,
which would be faster??, i at first thought that this is an excellent idea, but then thought that the speed would still have a maximum of 133MB/s anyway, but would the 2 Sata hdd's have a limit of 150mb/s or 300MB/s??

tweak\'e
11-03-2004, 05:24 PM
firstly what motherboard?

check what raid controllers it uses. there can quite a big diiference in speed between controllers. the difference between pata and sata is small, theres bigger differences between controllers. useing poor settings on a poor controller can make it run slower than a single drive.

having 4 hardrives on a 2 channel pata is slower than useing 2 hardrives.
with sata i'm not to sure if it suffers that problem.

camcamnz
11-03-2004, 05:35 PM
> firstly what motherboard?
a Gigabyte GA-7N400V Pro2

>check what raid controllers it uses.
Silicon Image sil3112A controller <- Sata Raid
GigaRAID ATA 133 RAID controller <- Pata Raid

> having 4 hardrives on a 2 channel pata is slower than
> useing 2 hardrives.
Thats Interesting Never New That, by two hard drives do you mean 2 on the same channel, or in seperate channels?

tweak\'e
11-03-2004, 05:41 PM
>by two hard drives do you mean 2 on the same channel, or in seperate channels?

soz .....

having 4 hardrives on a 2 channel pata (2 hardrives per channel) is slower than useing 2 hardrives on the 2 channels (1 hardrive per channel).

camcamnz
11-03-2004, 05:44 PM
oh ok
so what you are saying is that either way it will be faster to get 2 hard drives than 4 and that it doesnt matter wheather i get sata or pata, thats cool thanks for your help

tweak\'e
11-03-2004, 05:50 PM
i'm not sure with that board but i think whetu mentioed that nforce2 boards have had southbridge problems so it might be a better idea to use the sata controller. i would check out any reveiws on what the best setup to use (exspecially stripe size etc) which will save you having to benchmark it on each seeting. make sure the bios are updated before you use the raid controllers.

camcamnz
11-03-2004, 06:02 PM
> make sure the bios are updated before you use the raid controllers.
yeah i have

thanks, you have been a great help

PoWa
11-03-2004, 06:09 PM
If you had 4 hard drives on PATA then you wouldn't have anything left for your cd-rom drives.

Go with the two big ones in raid0. But then if you are getting that much data I wouldn't be doing that without a fault tolerant solution, ie raid0+1 (another drive for error checking and recovery).

camcamnz
11-03-2004, 06:13 PM
>If you had 4 hard drives on PATA then you wouldn't have anything left for your cd-rom drives.

Well i also have 2 normal ide headers (as well as the 2 raid headers)

> I wouldn't be doing that without a fault tolerant solution, ie raid0+1 (another drive for error checking and recovery).

not too worried about that i am going to keep my existing 80gig hard drive on as well, which i will probably put all my documents and stuff htat doesnt really need to run fast, and which are important on that, so that isnt an issue for me

PoWa
11-03-2004, 08:07 PM
If you want really fast, then you don't get slower drives. You get 2 Western Digital raptors and put them in sata raid-0. Thats 10,000 or 15,000rpms per drive depending which one you get and also superb seek and copy times. You would possibly get about 60Gb out of that solution for about $600.

camcamnz
11-03-2004, 08:10 PM
i want speed but i want capacity more, hence the '2 x 200gig' disks