|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 10, 2006 0:36:52 GMT -5
I'm in the market for a new HD, something fast 300, or 350gb
anyone have anything for sale? Or have any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by derf87 on May 10, 2006 7:44:35 GMT -5
Ebay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on May 10, 2006 8:32:19 GMT -5
Moved to the computer section. Kepping it on topic matt that as the paint ball section not PC thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by euclidean© on May 10, 2006 10:47:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 10, 2006 13:19:34 GMT -5
you're telling ME to look on ebay?? LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by AronMsmith1987 on May 10, 2006 22:05:15 GMT -5
LOL hes new to the whole computer thing and just assumes Ebay is the best for everything and in some cases it is but others not at all. but I would suggest looking into a Western Digital, ar a Seagate but it all depends on application and how much you want to spend. because if its for gaming I would get somthing that is a little faster than 7200RPM but if its just for general storage then save some$$ and get a HD from Harv I'm sure he has somthing that will satisfy your needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by euclidean© on May 11, 2006 0:30:53 GMT -5
gamming...get the new Raptors...2 of them to get to your 300GB u want. any SATA2 is great as well....u dont need a floppy drive to install windows  . and unless your going SCSI....7200rpm is the most you can get unless you get the raptors. Now...SATA2 drives can come with 16mb cache...i've seen some big differences just in that. But I think the new raptors are 10Krpm, 16mb cache and SATA2....so ya...those would be the fastest...though price wise its up there lol. My suggestion...all around...would be to get one of the bottom 2 i posted above. |
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 11, 2006 1:15:21 GMT -5
well im specifically waiting for harvey and lokers ideas anyone who has used raid? The drive is actually for my media center pc, but i can swap and change drives with my current computer. In the media center right now i have a 160 ATA but its 5400rpm and SLOW AS HELL
I currently have a 200gb, and 250gb sata in my main pc.
I basically have 5 choices
1. RAID 0 2x160gb=320gb $65 each x 2 = $130
2. RAID 0 2x250gb=500gb only need one = $80
3. RAID 0 2x300gb=600gb $100 each x 2 = $200
4. NCQ Drive 300 gb $100
5. Raptor 74 gb $130 (after rebate)
Option 2 looks best right now, as i only have to spend $80 but can accomplish what i need and boost my speed. It's going to depend on how well harvey likes his raid, or anyone else who has used it before? Backing the data up shouldnt be a problem, raid is looking best right now!
|
|
|
|
Post by euclidean© on May 11, 2006 11:14:21 GMT -5
Matt...thats exactly what Im using right now..... 4 x SATA2 WD 250GB 16mb cache, in a RAID 0. Works perfectly for me. I havent had any problems from the RAID, my system has been running strong for about 5 months now (built it in November or so) and Speeds are amazing. here are the HDD's i have in my system: www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136010 + a 5 year warranty... |
|
|
|
Post by AronMsmith1987 on May 11, 2006 18:41:40 GMT -5
well my two 250GB seagates are run in raid and its on my gaming PC and talk to harv about that because he is the one that set them up for me. but all in all no complaints they work just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 12, 2006 11:33:59 GMT -5
well i bought a 250gb sata to match the one i already have, raid here i come!
thanks to all the raid ppls that let me know their experiences!
|
|
|
|
Post by katsy on May 12, 2006 16:53:30 GMT -5
yay! you finally bought it, let me know how you like it
|
|
|
|
Post by Loker on May 12, 2006 18:24:41 GMT -5
I would not RAID unless you have to....most media center programs can adapt to a 2 HDD environment for storage......RAID is not that much faster and in some cases it can actually be slower.....the main problem is you double your chances for HDD failure!
the only time I would use RAID is either Level 1 or Level 5
RAID 5 is by far the best....you get good performance and good redundancy....I understand how it works but it still amazes me when I see it work how when a hard drive fails the computer just ignores it until you pop in a new one and then it rebuilds the data from the dead HDD on the new HDD
I would say get a 300 GB and then use the 250 GB you already have and not bother with setting up a RAID.....
also....just got me some money should have $60 more by the LAN....if not I can write you a check for $100 and then get you the rest when it comes in.....basically I can guarantee $100 at the LAN but I should hopefully have $160 at the LAN
ok to summarize the entire post get a 300 GB HDD and use the 250 GB you already have with it not in RAID and expect $100 at the LAN possibly $160....
|
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 12, 2006 23:53:48 GMT -5
yeha iv heard conflicting stories on the speed issue, basically it comes down to file sizes, big files move fast on raid small easy moves are no faster (its an urban legend that its slower)
fortunattly i DO move alot of big files, actually thats mostly what i have, 4+ gb files!
also the redundacy was an issue, but after adding the new hard drive i have plenty of backup space on the extra drives, so yeah if something fails all i'll lose at most is all my movies, and harvey has them all anyways!
also the raid is for my machine, not the media center
as for the speed issue, i'm going to time some file moves now and then after i get raid, i can always unraid later if i change my mind (although its a pain.)
|
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 13, 2006 1:04:06 GMT -5
stupid raid such a pain in the ass!!
atleast i have a new drive coming, should be faster than that pos 5400 drive!!
raid is a hard decision to make, i think im going to try it and just see how i like it!
also stripe size and crap like that will make a big difference, so i may need to do some experimenting!
i may run the raid separate from my OS, depends which way the os boots faster, with or without raid? also whatever games run faster in raid i can put in raid, others on the other drives!
|
|
|
|
Post by AronMsmith1987 on May 13, 2006 12:00:44 GMT -5
cool I wish you good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by euclidean© on May 14, 2006 9:35:17 GMT -5
Matt...u still w/ SATA? or SATA2? i dont see you mentioning SATA2 at all...so im guessing your still on 1....eh, RAID-0 im willing to risk....4-250GB drives set in a raid...My mobo has Nvidia RAID..which is what Ive used...I've been able to move my raid setup between 4 different mobo's and all of which have still detected my RAID and none of my info was lost (200GB+) so ya...it seems to work great...speed wise...I cant really tell you if I noticed a speed difference between normal SATA or IDE...mainly because I went from an AMD Athlon 3000+ w/IDE to a 3500+ 64bit w/SATA2...I do know one thing though....with the drives....the 16mb cache helps a lot compared to the 8mb cache. Let me know how you like that raid, i know I love mine (ps...I dont need a floppy to reformat/install windows  hahaha) |
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 14, 2006 10:50:57 GMT -5
yeah i'm sata 1, my mobo doesnt have sata 2, but luckily there isnt much difference betweeen the 2 (yet) as for the raid i'm gonna ghost my os over prolly, so i shouldn't need the floppy
|
|
|
|
Post by euclidean© on May 14, 2006 12:30:24 GMT -5
that'll make life easier |
|
|
|
Post by AronMsmith1987 on May 14, 2006 13:31:48 GMT -5
i hear ya there
|
|
|
|
Post by Kämpfer on May 30, 2006 9:52:01 GMT -5
I think the Ghost actually made life harder I know Romain has a lot of shit, but I think the standard reformat is the best option in most cases... As far as I know Matt hasn't posted it, but from what he said the raid array ended up working extremely well and totally slashed the file transfer times and actually sped up quite a few processes. For those of you who don't have raid yet.... lol
|
|
|
|
Post by BARK BARK BARK BARK on May 31, 2006 1:03:19 GMT -5
Well here are my results!! Overall, there is very little difference in performance when running single tasks, but multitasking performance is much better! Also, ghost 9 works great if you just copy your C drive onto the raid array (while in windows) but ghost is a pain in the ass to restore an image to C.
WITHOUT RAID
(1 GIG FILE)
DRIVE TO DRIVE
Copy E:\newbin.bin to d:\newbin22.bin
Size: 1048576000
Time: 21344 ms
Transfer Rate: 46.852 MB/s
NEW DATA
Created file: D:\DiskBench21.bin
Size: 1048576000 bytes
Time: 17969 ms
Transfer Rate: 55.651 MB/s
SAME DRIVE
Copy E:\newbin.bin to E:\newbin2.bin
Size: 1048576000
Time: 72344 ms
Transfer Rate: 13.823 MB/s
MULTITASKING
Created file: e:\DiskBench21.bin
Size: 1048576000 bytes
Time: 93641 ms
Transfer Rate: 10.679 MB/s
Firefox: 57 seconds (launch time while writing data)
(Firefox when idle: 3 seconds)
BOOT TIME
1:35
WITH RAID
(1 GIG FILE)
NEW DATA
Created file: D:\DiskBench1.bin
Size: 1048576000 bytes
Time: 18203 ms
Transfer Rate: 54.936 MB/s
SAME DRIVE
Copy D:\DiskBench1.bin to D:\DiskBench21.bin
Size: 1048576000
Time: 45094 ms
Transfer Rate: 22.176 MB/s
DUAL
Created file: D:\DiskBench1.bin
Size: 1048576000 bytes
Time: 30969 ms
Transfer Rate: 32.290 MB/s
Firefox: 18 seconds (launch time while writing data)
(Firefox when idle: 3 seconds)
BOOT TIME
0:43
|
|
|
|
Post by AronMsmith1987 on May 31, 2006 23:13:47 GMT -5
Wow actually I am impressed and with it as a computer used mainly for multitasking it is somewhat of a substantial upgrade.. well I hope you continue to have good luck. Bravo..
|
|
|
|
Post by euclidean© on Jun 5, 2006 12:12:47 GMT -5
sweet, nice times matt...glad you like it |
|
. and unless your going SCSI....7200rpm is the most you can get unless you get the raptors. Now...SATA2 drives can come with 16mb cache...i've seen some big differences just in that. But I think the new raptors are 10Krpm, 16mb cache and SATA2....so ya...those would be the fastest...though price wise its up there lol.
hahaha)