RAID. P-ATA or S-ATA

[Kenny]

Evening all...

Say I want to make a RAID 0,
If I had a choice between a P-ATA disk with a seek/access time of X milliseconds, and a S-ATA disk also with a seek/access time of X milliseconds, Will the performance be the same? 2 disks set up in RAID 0)

I`ve been looking at S-ATA disks and the access times seem to be about the same as my P-ATA (9ms or...crap!) . Apart from the neater cabling, i`m not seeing any advantage in S-ATA if the performance is the same. (Raptors excluded)

Any info?

Cheers

Kenny

 

[Cache-man]

Access speed vs. transfer speed

While the acces times (the time it takes for the read/write head to access the data on the spinning platters within the hard disk) may be similar, you will find that SATA drives have a much faster transfer rate (the speed at which the data can travel between the motherboard and the disk.

I cant remember off of the top of my head but i think that SATA disks can transfer data at up to 150MB per sec, which is 50% faster than ATA100 devices....I think. And also I think that the new SATA2 drives are even capable of up to 300MB per sec.

Can anyone confirm these figures.

 

[Kenny]

U got the case I want! Is it as good as it looks in pics?

LOL...back to the original point... Yea, those figures are right, though I think they`re peak transfer rates, not sustained. I totally forgot about them, have read about them in magazines a million times. i`d forget my head if it werent screwed on

LOL.... So S-ATA RAID is gonna be better then?

Kenny

 

[muckshifter]

Yep, Cache-man, you are correct ... but I believe SATA2 will actually be around the 450 mark.

 

[floppybootstomp]

Yep, definitely go for SATA, faster transfer speeds than PATA.

RAID 0 will generally be a little faster than a single comparable disk anyway, but the difference isn't that much greater.

Unless you use a pair of Raptors, they fly

Or there's always SCSI I suppose, but now we talking serious money

 

[Cache-man]

I must say that from what I've read about RAID 0 configurations I havent been overly impressed.
RAID0 or 'Striping' involves writing all data in stripes accross 2 or more drives, which are recognized as 1 large single drive.
RAID0 is supposedly faster than a single drive, but isnt actuallymuch quicker. And the major downfall is that if one of your drives fails, you will lose ALL of the data that is striped accross the drive array.

My advice is that if you must use RAID0, then make sure you regularly back up your array to a third independant drive (can be PATA or SATA, doesnt really matter for backup), or just get a single Raptor for your main drive, and then a second for simply storing music and other files on.
Of course thats just my personal preference, and might not suit everyones needs.

What do you mainly intend to use your RAID 0 array for anyway - just faster gaming, media centre, DTP...?

 

[floppybootstomp]

My advice is that if you must use RAID 0, then make sure you regularly back up your array to a third independant drive

Sound advice

What do you mainly intend to use your RAID 0 array for anyway - just faster gaming, media centre, DTP...?

In my experience, RAID 0 does make for a faster system. Currently I have 2 Raptors (see sig) and in another machine 2 x WD 120Gb SATA drives in a RAID 0 array which gives me a nice big 240Gb drive (well, it seemed big 8 months ago, now 250Gb and 300Gb drives are common, lol).

With the Raptor drives I can definitely notice or 'feel' an improvement, with the two standard WD SATA drives, I can't really notice much difference in performance between the RAID array and a single disk.

And that's the truth, from everday experience. However. using the ATTO benchmark, the RAID 0 array is considerably faster than a single disk. But that's a benchmark. Not real 'everyday' use.

 

[Cache-man]

Kenny:

I do love my case. It does look as smart as all the pics on the web, but looks much better in the flesh with my UV and blue cathodes shining out of all of the holes.
The only additions I would have liked it to have are a removable motherboard tray, as I am often fiddling with components, and provisional for front intake and rear exhaust 120mm fans as I can only fit 80mm ones to the mountings although i can fit a 120mm to the side panel.

Oh, It's also a bit noisy due to all of the holes, but bearable caus it looks so cool.

 

[Kenny]

Hmmm. I didnt think of the noise aspect, but the cooling must be immense

As for disks... I currently have a 120GB Maxtor P-ATA with 2MB cache, split into 2 equal partitions. I dont think its a slouch, but I hope a S-ATA with 8MB cache is gonna rip this apart for speed, and to a degree where its noticeable for loading times. I have a 30GB disk that stays outside my comp for backing up important info. I know what u mean about losing all the data if one disk goes, but its technically no worse than having one, non-RAID disk fail if theres no backup

Kenny

 

[floppybootstomp]

I know what u mean about losing all the data if one disk goes, but its technically no worse than having one, non-RAID disk fail if theres no backup

Kenny

Thank you, Kenny, for pointing that out.

This is an old argument and I've always maintained that using a RAID 0 array is only a little riskier than using a single disk. If a disk dies, it dies, and that's it.

However, I suppose if you're using two disks as one drive, then realistically the chance of failure doubles.

But that is the only extra risk, as far as I can see.

Hard drives do fail - and frequently - but mostly, they don't. Does that make sense, lol

RAID 0 is a good thing, it is faster, but just don't expect mega improvements, just a slight gain.

 

[Cache-man]

I upgraded recently from an 80Gb Seagate Baracuda PATA to its SATA equivalent, and to be honest didnt really notice much of a difference, although there was a slight increase. The disk can still only read and write at the speed that the platters rotate (7200rpm, unless you have a 10,000 Raptor), and at the speed the head access the tracks (access time mentioned earlier). So for large amounts of data you may notice a difference, but for other things you may not.
Sorry to keep rambling on..I appear to be complicating something as simple as a hard drive.

SATA is now the industry standard for hard drives, so i would certainly recommend it over PATA. Soon will come SATA optical drives too, which will be a major industry step, and will help in keeping our case insides a little tidier too.

 

[ChristopherP]

SATA is the way forward... I **ONLY** use SATA drives now in systems i build for people, they are just so much tidier and theres not even really a difference in price.

 

[Kenny]

Yea I was looking for S-ATA opticals a couple days ago, only found Plextor- too expensive. The P-ATA cables are the main problem I got for cooling at the mo. They`re rounded but because of the size of my case they`re tight and right over my memory, which really needs a fan over it coz 275MHz aint enough....

 

[silver]

While the acces times (the time it takes for the read/write head to access the data on the spinning platters within the hard disk) may be similar, you will find that SATA drives have a much faster transfer rate (the speed at which the data can travel between the motherboard and the disk.

I cant remember off of the top of my head but i think that SATA disks can transfer data at up to 150MB per sec, which is 50% faster than ATA100 devices....I think. And also I think that the new SATA2 drives are even capable of up to 300MB per sec.

Can anyone confirm these figures.

the figures are correct I believe

one thing to be aware of with all these numbers around.,. the speed of the interface is not the speed you get the data.. a 7200 disk will perform much the same on an IDE66 interface as it will on a SATA150 - or certainly it won't go twice as fast on the SATA even though you think it might,.

the disk has a maximum sustained transfer speed for a given rotational speed - I don't know the exact number but it's something in the order of 50megs/sec - less than IDE66 anyway..

which is where the 10,000 rpm disks come in... still a little too expensive for my needs and I'm concerned by the reports of extra noise - anyone confirm how much noiser they might be ?

Sil

 

[floppybootstomp]

which is where the 10,000 rpm disks come in... still a little too expensive for my needs and I'm concerned by the reports of extra noise - anyone confirm how much noiser they might be ?

Sil

The 35Gb Raptors are noisier than current PATA & SATA disks, no doubt about it, I can hear them whirring away when they're busy, reminds me of IDE disks from a few years back.

The 74Gb Raptors, however, are quiet. But two of them are, I must confess, a little expensive and you still only have a main drive of around 140Gb if you create a RAID 0 array with them.

Fast though