Hi!

This seems to be a good spot to ask questions. Greetings Experts!

First some background:

I need to get one or two extra harddrives for my system. My 14 months old IBM deskstar 80 gig is "clicking" now and then, and it continues to do so despite the installation of an extra dual fan HDD cooler ( that lowers the temp to approx. 29 C)

OK, now to the point! I am a power user. I let my computer run pretty much 24/7. I do this because I have a cable broadband connection, and need to make use of it to justify the high cost. So... therefore I am running my favourite p2p programme night and day. That would mean that the computer mainly runs as a server.

As the crappy IBM hdd started to click after only 3 weeks of 24/7 usage (I have had cooling for 2 weeks now), I figure that I will be better off with another brand. My motherboard supports RAID 0, and since I have heard many good things about RAID, I think it might be a good idea to try it.

Question 1:

Am I really better off with two 80 gig harddrives configured as a 0 level raid than I would be if I chose a single 160 gig harddrive. Performance-wise, that is.

Question 2:

Should I choose ata 100 or ata 133? I have looked around the internet, and some people claim that the differences are insignificant. Are these claims true? Is there any significant difference when it comes to 0 level RAID?

Question 3:

I am currently considering two options, if you recommend me to go ahead with RAID.

One option is to buy two WD Caviar XL 80 HDDs. The pros of this choice seem to be that it has a cache of 8mb, and that it offers a 3 year warranty. The con may be that it "only" offers ata100

Another option is to buy two maxtor diamond plus 9. The pros of this choice seem to be that it offers ata 133 together with an 8mb cache. The con seems to be the 1 year warranty that makes me suspect that the quality of this HDD is lower than that of the WD caviar. I don't want another drive clicking after 3 weeks use.

Qustion 4:

Are the above mentioned HDDs suitable for "server-like" usage? Of course I will install HDD coolers if needed.

Over to you! What do you think? Any ideas or suggestions?

Thanks for reading my post. Depending on when you read this, I will take this opportunity to wish you all the best for the new year!

If you have a 120GX IBM-HD, these were never meant for 24/7. They should run a max. of 8 hours/day. Other (older) IBMs were notorious for conking out early in life.

Between ATA100 and 133 there is indeed not much difference (I think). Any HD with an 8MB cache is a fast one, and both WD and Maxtor as mentioned are very reliable.
Check out the Seagate Barracuda IV as well, not the fastest, but very quiet.

I leave RAID to others.

I believe IBM later withdrew that statement. No consumer level drives are designed for 24/7 use, and the IBM 120GXP drives were just as capable as any others. It was because they had excellent server performance, that users were buying them for 24/7 server use that concerned IBM. Consumer drives were never designed for this purpose, as that market is catered for by high cost SCSI devices.

From my experience, the failure rate of new drives (regardless of brand) is higher that you would expect - if the manufacturer's figures are to be believed. Hard drives are the least reliable computer component, so if data security bothers you, then you should definitely consider a RAID setup.

:grinthumb Ok, thank you both for your advice, but I need to know more. Is SCSI really the only way? (The manufacturers need to rethink. Many consumers have broadband today, and use their computers heavily). Why should I lose hours of bandwidth because shoddy hardware? Is it really that more expensive to manufacture SCSI drives than consumer drives, or can this be compared to the phenomena of airtravel where business class seats are rediculousely overpriced just because companies can, and do, pay more?) :darth:

So...back to the point....what do you figure is the best solution to my problem? How many hours per day should I let my new harddrives rest? Or, should I delay my purchase of a new HDD until I can afford a smaller, way more expensive SCSI, and then let it work 24/7 to spread the cost over the increase in hours of usage?

If I decide to use a new consumer harddrive 24/7 and it breaks after, say 5 months, will the manufacturer be able to see that I did not use it according to their recommendations, and thus deny me compensation?

Just stick with IDE or Serial ATA. They'll be good for 24/7, but just don't expect them to last as long as drives that are designed to run 24/7 (i.e. SCSI or WD Raptor SATA drives). You'll only void your warranty if you are using your drives for commercial puposes as they will be under heavy load almost constantly. Cheap IDE drives are not designed with this in mind. SCSI drives have higher performance and better reliability, hence most of the better (expensive) models come with 5 year warranties and can be run commercially 24/7.

Thanks Nic and Per!

Many wise suggestions from you both. RAID 5 sounds interesting, but the controller card needed for such a setup seems to be too pricey for me. (I searched google and found quotes around $300) I was thinking of spending a maximum of SEK 3000 on upgrading my storage. I was thinking of following alternative setups:


Alternative 1

2 HDDs making up a RAID 0 array + 1 HDD that stands alone

There are only 2 IDE connections on my MB, and I have read that it is recommended that each HDD in the array alone occupies an IDE cable. So I figure that I will need an extra PCI controller card for the stand alone HDD, the CD-RW and the DVD-RW.

I have also read that the performance of the array is increased if it is not used as a boot device. Does that mean that I should use the stand alone HDD as a boot device holding the OS and the Swap file?

Alternative 2

IDE HDD + SCSI HDD

Can IDE and SCSI coexist on a system? I was thinking of a Maxtor Atlas 10 K IV 36,7 with an Ultra 320 connection. What kind of extas will I need to get if installing this HDD? Will a controller card be enough?

Take a look at this Raid-5 Controller (only $94) ...

HighPoint RocketRAID 1640 4 Ch Serial ATA RAID Host Adapter (RAID 5, 0, 1, 0/1, JBOD) - $94.00 USD

Check out the other controllers on the site (e.g. ATA133 RAID etc.)

Hi again Per and Nic!

Per:
I'll answer your question now. Well my data is not that important. I regularly back up important files, as one should. However, I am tired of shoddy hardware. As you may read above, I have an IBM/Hitachi 80 GB harddrive now. I have had it for about 14 months. My sister had the computer then so the harddrive was only used a couple of times per week. However, I got the machine and hooked it up to my broadband connection leaving it to run pretty much 24/7 with just rebooting everyday. My broadband connection costs me SEK 4000 per year and I want to use it day and night for p2p, so I was very dissapointed to note that the IBM had begun to "click" after about 3 weeks of around-the-clock-usage. I just want a harddrive that l don't have to worry about after one month. I have to admit that I don't know much about RAID. My computer keeps asking me to define an array every time I boot, and I thought it would be cool to set up an array as I have read many positive things abot it on the net.

Nic:
I checked out the card. It seems great. I would need a minimum of three harddrives to set up a RAID 5 array, right?

Ok, I think will forget about SCSI. It seems to be very much of a cash cow for the manufacturers, and I with my limited budget do not wish to contribute to the fat margins they earn from such products. However, when it comes to adding a SATA Pci controller card to my system, I wonder if my Mobo (that means motherboard, right?) will become a bottle neck. I have an ASUS P4B533-E motherboard and I wonder if I really can take advantage of the 150 MB transfer speeds. The technical specs for the card in question say that it is a 33/66 mhz card. Does that matter?

Also, I intend to keep my IBM drive as long as it lasts and make a boot drive of it since I have heard that booting from the array will affect performance adversely. That would make the array, a data drive.

Something else to bear in mind is that although the risk of drive failure increases in a RAID setup (e.g. with 2 drives instead of one, you double the chance of drive failure occurring - from defective components/manufacturing, but not from wear and tear), the drives will share the workload and so they will not be working as hard. This might improve the longevity of your drives, so that (barring failures due to defects), they should not wear out so fast. They will not heat up so much (less activity) and so that should improve reliability a little. Just another angle.

That failure chance increase is true only in case of RAID 0.
In any other RAID configuration a single HD death is not a "failure" since your virtual drive is intact and replacing the dead iron can be considered as routine maintenance.

Rick, Nic, Per and everybody else,

thank you for all your advice. I have now decided that RAID is not what I need at the moment, as I want a good compromise between price, reliability, and performance. I will go for a 160 GB Seagate drive that comes with a 3 year warranty. I know that any harddrive breaks eventually but if it can last me those 3 years, I will be quite satisfied.

So, my setup will be as follows:

IBM/hitachi 80 GB HDD 2MB cache + Seagate 160 GB, 8MB cache. To optimise the performance of my system, should I assign the space needed for the swap file on the disc that is not the boot disk? My system never uses more than half of my RAM which is 512 MB, so can I eliminate the swap file altogether?

If you do not want to spend extra on SCSI, then get a 74GB Raptor @ 10,000RPM (compared to normal 7,200).

They are very fast, and not out of this world expensive.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?DEPA=1&sumit=Go&description=22-144-160&searchdepa=1