Fastest HDD setup (scsi)

[Batistuta]

I will go with one of the following setups; which would be the fastest/best??

1) Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP (15000rpm, 8mb cache)

2) Raid 0: 2xMaxtor Atlas 10k III (10000rpm, 8mb cache)

Both setups will be 36gb, and will be used as primary drive for Win XP (including programmes and some games).
Also the price is the same.

Controller is U160 (w.16mb onboard ram) and will be sitting on a standard 32bit PCI slot.

Machine is: P4 2.4, 512mb DDR, Asus P4S533 MB, GF4 Ti4200

Thx.
B.

 

[Batistuta]

No one? bump-a-di-bump

Transfer rates (NTFS) is as follows:
start - end

Seagate: 60,5mb/s - 45mb/s
Maxtor: 53,9mb/s - 31,8mb/s

Also the Seagate does ~40% IOs/sec than the Maxtor.

But remember that the Maxtor(s) would be in Raid 0.

B.

 

[mastertech01]

It depends on whether your raid controller will be using two channels or single channel. Two channel raid is much more efficient. 32bit PCI slot will also limit performance somewhat. It also varies widely with the controller used as well. Adaptec raid controllers tend to be poor performers compared to say ATTO. Ive had 4 X15 on dual channel ATTO raid controller in a 64bit slot on a dual processor Athlon rig, and it was very fast. But in my experience most typical 32bit setups will not yield enough difference to notice enough performance gain to justify the expense of SCSI RAID. I believe your best performance dollar is a good U160 standard controller with a 3rd generation X15 in a 32bit environment. IMHO

 

[Painkiller]

I would go with the seagate setup because you acess time will be lower.

 

[torreyk]

The Seagate drive also happens to be about half as loud as an Atlas as well. I have a 2nd gen X-15 in my home machine and its amazing how fast things load and how the drive never bogs down.

 

[Batistuta]

Forgot to say that the Seagate has an U320 interface - not that it really matters, since I can only afford a U160 controller (and 32bit PCI is <133mb/sec. anyway). I guess it would only be the burst transfers (of max.8mb) that would benefit from the U320 interface anyway, since the HDD can only do ~60-70mb/sec. in sustained transfer??!
Okay, I read somewhere that U320 has other benefits over U160 than speed, right?

Will go with the Seagate setup. Despite of above advice, the controller will be the dual channel Adaptec 39160 (since I can pick up a used one for ~140$ - which is very cheap here in Denmark!) This is also the controller chosen by Arstechnica for their 'Godbox' - the machine to buy if money is not an issue at all...which it unfortunately is for me...

B.

 

[jose]

your better off w/ the single drive setup. Raid 0 is striping right ? You double your chance of losing data w/ raid0.

I'd do raid 5 or 10 or no raid at all. Besides scis drives last real long & w/ increases in performance & size , you'll over the years collect alot of drives.

I have a 2g , 4.5, 4 - 9g, 2 - 18g, 4 - 36gigs.

Regards,
Jose

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: jose
your better off w/ the single drive setup. Raid 0 is striping right ? You double your chance of losing data w/ raid0.

Besides scis drives last real long

I'm confused why you said these two things together. I agree with you completely on both accounts, but SCSI is reliable enough (IMHO) to justify RAID 0. However, I do agree that RAID 0 would be a waste in a mainly gaming and performance system. You will find some major increases if you did a lot of video and audio editing, but won't get much from games. Just having SCSI will be good enough.

And I have the 29160 Adaptec, and it rocks.

 

[Sundog]

Originally posted by: torreyk
The Seagate drive also happens to be about half as loud as an Atlas as well. I have a 2nd gen X-15 in my home machine and its amazing how fast things load and how the drive never bogs down.

Huh??? The X15-36LP may be quieter than an Atlas 10K II, but it is not quieter that the Atlas 10K III. I have both in a rig with the case off sitting 3 feet from me, the Atlas 10K III is definitely quieter.