Re: Questions about HD's, sata 3 vs 6gb/s, and general performance
Originally Posted by
blueturtl
You have to understand that the interface speed that is given (UDMA100, SATA 3 GB/s, SATA 6 GB/s) is just that, the maximum speed the interface can transmit. The harsh truth is that in hard drives the bottle necks lie in the mechanics rather than the interface: you can't find a drive that can actually reach the maximum speed of the interface. SATA 6 GB/s is futureproof I guess, but at this point mostly just marketing.
Well, I thought that the SataIII HD's might have had multiple read/write heads per disk like some of the server drives I've heard about which would actually make use of the new interface. Although, thinking about it now and after doing the numbers I realize that they'd cost a lot more than they do if that were the case. Those drives are probably only for SCSI.
Originally Posted by
Lensman
I might be inclined to use your RAID array as your primary OS drive and set an automatic backup to a 2T Spinpoint.
My theory behind using the 2TB RAID0 array for storage and a single 750GB drive for OS's was to get away from using RAID for my OS's because I think that might be the reason Windows 7 BSOD's all the time. I do have a Hitachi (Cavalry) 2TB drive. But I use that for backing up my data. I keep it unplugged and in a metal cabinet so that if my house got hit by lightning it wouldn't be inside my computer and so that if its' not powered on all the time it's less likely to spontaneously crash, as unlikely as those two scenarios are.
I think I might go the route of just getting a 2TB storage drive, use my 2TB fake0 array for primary OS's, and not worry about Windows 7's instability. Or hope that it's fixed in the form of either a Windows or BIOS update.
The only thing I know for certain is that I know nothing at all, for certain.
Bookmarks