- Mar 9, 2009
- 441
- 1
- 81
Considering picking up a pair of toshiba x300 4tb drives vs a sandisk 960gb SSD. The toshiba has actually shown over 200 mb/s read write, so it's pretty fast for a HD. Any thoughts?
You're also comparing 8TB of storage vs 960GB.
It would still be 8TB in RAID0. RAID0 puts 50% of each file on each disk but you still utilise the entirety of both disks. RAID1 is a mirror where disk 2 is a complete copy of disk 1, thus meaning 2x4TB HDD's only gives you 4TB in total.Well in raid 0 it would be 4 tb still. Raid 0 is supposed to be faster, which is why I'm curious about the solution (never ran any drives in raid before). Games are getting huge with consoles all having BD drives, and all of the add on content for everything etc
Putting 8TB of data in RAID-0 is lunacy.
Why? Is it more likely to fail then a single drive? This would be games only, maybe movies if I got into dling them, but nothing important.
um, yeah? RAID0 splits the files equally across as many disks as are in the array but with no parity, so if any disk in the array fails the entire array is lost. The more disks you add, the higher the chance of failure.Why? Is it more likely to fail then a single drive?
um, yeah? RAID0 splits the files equally across as many disks as are in the array but with no parity, so if any disk in the array fails the entire array is lost. The more disks you add, the higher the chance of failure.
These days RAID0 only serves a very specific purpose which is to increase performance in highly sequential read and write workloads. 99% of people don't see a benefit, games included.
The best thing for you to do would be to buy the largest SSD you can afford and then have a WD Green as a secondary storage HDD.
I roll the dice with 2 x sam 840 pro's 256 R0 because the second one was so cheap to get to 500gbs for os and current games at the time.Well if game load times arent decreased with raid 0 then it's not an option for me. That's pretty much all I really needed to know.
I find the negative comments about 8 tb for a gaming drive amusing, a quick look back at the history of memory and storage requirements should show "too much" now is maybe not enough in 5 years.
Considering picking up a pair of toshiba x300 4tb drives vs a sandisk 960gb SSD. The toshiba has actually shown over 200 mb/s read write, so it's pretty fast for a HD. Any thoughts?
SSD + Steam Mover. Keep the games you're not currently playing on a slow mechanical drive(s).
Well if game load times arent decreased with raid 0 then it's not an option for me. That's pretty much all I really needed to know.
I find the negative comments about 8 tb for a gaming drive amusing, a quick look back at the history of memory and storage requirements should show "too much" now is maybe not enough in 5 years.
I find the negative comments about 8 tb for a gaming drive amusing, a quick look back at the history of memory and storage requirements should show "too much" now is maybe not enough in 5 years.
Nonsense. Sequential read speeds are all that matter in the vast majority games. Random access performance has little to no impact.It's not read times you want for games as much as access time.