News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Two hard drives or one

Started by Alcibiades, March 14, 2010, 02:56:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Alcibiades

Im looking at getting a new rig, and with the custom builders I can get a single 160gb intel SSD for 4$ less than I can get two 80GB intel SSD drives.  Just wondering what is the best deal?  I know generally smaller ones are better as larger drives fail more often, but in your guys' opinion which option is better?

Thanks
Wait...  What would you know about masculinity, you fucking faggot?  - Overly Autistic Neil


OTOH, if you think that a Jew actually IS poisoning the wells you should call the cops. IMHO.   - The Brain

Josquius

Two.
If one does fail the other is still there with all your precious data.
And whats 4$? A beer?

But 160? Thats damn small by todays standards...
██████
██████
██████

Darth Wagtaros

Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Two.
If one does fail the other is still there with all your precious data.
And whats 4$? A beer?

But 160? Thats damn small by todays standards...
Solid state probably.

Go for two.  Mirror them.
PDH!

derspiess

Wouldn't they run super-duper fast in RAID0, though?  I'd be tempted to do that (and then of course run nightly backups :) )
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Darth Wagtaros

I bet they'd be pretty radical. 
PDH!

MadImmortalMan

#5
SSD  = Teh Awesome



Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs

Most people have seen it already, I'm sure, but hey.

"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

derspiess

Btw where are those damn hybrid drives we were promised??  They were supposed to be all over the place (and cheap) by now  :mad:
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Josquius

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 14, 2010, 08:12:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Two.
If one does fail the other is still there with all your precious data.
And whats 4$? A beer?

But 160? Thats damn small by todays standards...
Solid state probably.

Go for two.  Mirror them.
People actually do that?
Seems like a waste of storage space to me, hard drives fail very very rarely and little of my stuff is that critical.
██████
██████
██████

Vricklund

Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2010, 07:12:12 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 14, 2010, 08:12:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Two.
If one does fail the other is still there with all your precious data.
And whats 4$? A beer?

But 160? Thats damn small by todays standards...
Solid state probably.

Go for two.  Mirror them.
People actually do that?
Seems like a waste of storage space to me, hard drives fail very very rarely and little of my stuff is that critical.
Depends on how much storage space you need. I could easily get by with 80GB. You can streaming porn these days you know. :)

derspiess

Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2010, 07:12:12 AM
People actually do that?
Seems like a waste of storage space to me, hard drives fail very very rarely and little of my stuff is that critical.

Definitely a waste of premium storage space IMO.  Assuming you don't need a real-time mirror, doing regular backups (that reside on cheaper standard HDD space) would do just fine.

To get back to your original question, how are the individual 80GB drives rated for read/write speed vs. the 160GB drive?  If they are the same, I would seriously go for doing the two 80GB drives in RAID0.  If the 160GB SSD happens to be about twice the speed as the individual 80GB drives (I saw this when I was briefly pricing SSD's), then I would just go with the 160GB drive.

If you don't want to do any RAID0 to begin with, then I would just go with the 160GB drive for simplicity's sake.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Alcibiades

Yeah they would certainly be Raid 0, and yes they are solid states as I said in my opening post.

Thanks guys.  :)
Wait...  What would you know about masculinity, you fucking faggot?  - Overly Autistic Neil


OTOH, if you think that a Jew actually IS poisoning the wells you should call the cops. IMHO.   - The Brain

Darth Wagtaros

Quote from: Tyr on March 16, 2010, 07:12:12 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 14, 2010, 08:12:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Two.
If one does fail the other is still there with all your precious data.
And whats 4$? A beer?

But 160? Thats damn small by todays standards...
Solid state probably.

Go for two.  Mirror them.
People actually do that?
Seems like a waste of storage space to me, hard drives fail very very rarely and little of my stuff is that critical.
Some people do, if they want extra redundancy.  Yeah, you could do regular backups and not bother, it is all about the risk of data loss you are willing to take. 

I'd go for RAID 0 if you don't need to worry about losing anything important or have backups.
PDH!

grumbler

160GB in RAID 0 vice 160 in one drive is just double the (small) failure rate with an inconsequential improvement in speed.  One drive for sure.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Darth Wagtaros

Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2010, 09:07:14 PM
160GB in RAID 0 vice 160 in one drive is just double the (small) failure rate with an inconsequential improvement in speed.  One drive for sure.
That's not as l33t as having the RAID. 
PDH!

MadImmortalMan

Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2010, 09:07:14 PM
160GB in RAID 0 vice 160 in one drive is just double the (small) failure rate with an inconsequential improvement in speed.  One drive for sure.

It's a solid state drive. It has nowhere near the failure rate you expect from hard drives traditionally--which are basically guaranteed to fail eventually. It's like going from a 5% likelihood to fail to a 0.0001% likelihood. You're gonna complain when you bump it all the way up to 0.0002%?  :P
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers