[Spinman]

How critical is it in these days of SATA raid to obtain a matching hard drive for Raid 0?

I currently have a 200g WD2000JD SATA drive and would like to setup a Raid-0 array.

Can I use a larger drive (and possible a different vendor) (giving me more versatility for future system reconfiguration)? Naturally the array would be limited to the smaller of the two drives....

Would the possible difference in read/write times be a problem? I'm sure there would be a theoretical performance difference by using 2 different drives - but in real world useage - would it really make any difference - speed wise or system damage wise? Is the drive controller confused when writing parallel data to two different drives?

I'm thinking of adding a Hitachi 250g or a WD 330g drive as a match to the 200. (presumably at some point in the future, I would upgrade the 200 to the larger capacity - if still available).

Thanks for any thoughts...

[ripken204]

yes u can do it but it is recommended to at least have the same brand name although its even better to have to of the same drives

but u can use 2 completely different drives, u might have problems but give it a try if u want

and u currently have a 200gig hdd and are looking to get another? why dont u just get the same drive as u have now so that i know it will work right?

[IcemanND]

you can use any combo of drives, but the size of your raid 0 will be the size of the smallest drive.

[ripken204]

correct

[Technoguy]

guys isn't raid 0 combined the drives in to 1 large one, you can use the full space of both... you're thinking of the other types where the drives back each other up that they have to be the same size.i think he's talkin bout raid1.correct me if i'm wrong

[ripken204]

u are combining the drives, but its not combining the full size of the 2 drives

u take the size of the smallest drive times 2 and thats what u get

so if u had an 80gig and a 100gig then ur total would be 160gigs

[Technoguy]

@rip i think in raid0 it doesn't matter does matter in raid1

[ripken204]

dont argue with me, im right

its tuff to find good articles on it but here
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/l...leLevel0-c.html

Array Capacity: (Size of Smallest Drive * Number of Drives).

that means u take the size if the smallest drive, if u have a 120gig and an 80gig then u would take the 80gig, then u multiply that by the number of drives which is 2, so 2x80=160gigs

[Mekrel]

ripken204, on Jul 29 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

dont argue with me, im right

its tuff to find good articles on it but here
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/l...leLevel0-c.html

Array Capacity: (Size of Smallest Drive * Number of Drives).

that means u take the size if the smallest drive, if u have a 120gig and an 80gig then u would take the 80gig, then u multiply that by the number of drives which is 2, so 2x80=160gigs
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Instead of being an arrogant id*** and saying dont argue with you. Wouldnt it have just surficed to point him to a source?

Everyone is here to learn, so theres no need to be stuck up you own backside. You dont like it when Astalavista makes comments about you, do you?

@Thread starter
because the array is being written across both disks, its at least best to get the same speed drives in terms of spin speed as the RAId array will be affected by slower disk as its latency (the time the disk spins to the read/write head) will be higher. Average seek time and such shouldnt make much difference.

However, with Raid0 (if thats what your intending on using) I would personally get the same drives as it offers no data security. Its not something I would risk unless your using your Raid0 as tempory - non important file storage.

[ripken204]

im sorry but its just that i already had explained it but he still thought he was right

[Mekrel]

ripken204, on Jul 30 2005, 04:36 AM, said:

im sorry but its just that i already had explained it but he still thought he was right
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate that, but you learn something new everyday - theres no need to get angry because others have been misinformed, he happily said to correct him if he was wrong.

He could have got his info from a site which was wrong, it happens and Ive been misinformed before from sites because you think people who put information on thier sites have actually researched it... which isnt always the case.

My response to you was probably abit too heated, but this is a forum to learn and no one should attack each other. Im only a member on about 3 or so forums and MSFN is easiestly the place that I learn most about software.

This post has been edited by Mekrel: 29 July 2005 - 09:50 PM

[atomizer]

to elaborate on why it's more efficient to have the same size drives in a RAID 0 array (you already know why having the same type/speed is important), i can add that in this type of array, each file, program, whatever, is sort of divided in half. one half gets written to one drive and the other half to the second drive, so if one drive is larger than the other, then that extra space is simply wasted and, to my knowledge, there is no way to partition and use it because the OS (any OS) sees both drives as ONE drive. my only advice would be to not store important data across a RAID 0 array because, as has been mentioned, if one drive bombs, the other 50% of the data is 100% useless.

[ripken204]

thx mekrel for telling me to calm down and im rly sry technoguy, ive had a crappy day, im on about 5 hrs of sleep, my laptop has been screwed up and im trying to fix and im about to throw it out the window. as a member of this forum i have to respect others to make this community better.

[Technoguy]

heh rip happens no needs for apology cause basically i was tryin 2 convince a pal and he was still tryin 2 insist.k ty for correcting me up and no hard feelings