|
|
#1 |
|
Solid State Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
|
I am going to build a gaming PC and was wondering what the best hard drive set up would be? I want something that is fast and responsive. I was leaning toward a 250GB Kingston Hyper x SSD SATA iii and a 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black HDD. Should I get a second HDD and set them up in RAID 0? Anyone who has any thoughts or opinions as to what is best please comment. It is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
In Runtime
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 273
|
Be careful with the Caviar Black drives. I had two of them in a RAID 0 and one drive crapped out. While RAID 0 is fast, make sure you have a backup of your bulk storage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Solid State Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
|
That is good to know. Instead of the Kingston Hyper x I was thinking a Samsung 830 256GB SSD and I was just looking for a reliable HDD. Know any HDD that are reliable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Fully Optimized
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with the WD Blacks - though honestly for storage duties you'd be fine with either a WD Blue or even a green. Once you get above 1TB, speed doesn't matter as much - some of the 7200 RPM 1TB drives are faster than the old 300GB Raptors which spin at 10,000 RPM. There's no reason to put a storage drive in RAID 0 - you'd be adding speed and capacity, but no data redundancy. RAID 1 would be better if you're concerned about data safety. An SSD + HDD combo is respectable, and works fine - the PC I use at work has a 120GB SSD and a 750GB storage drive (Western Digital Black too). If you can afford it, go for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Solid State Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
|
I was thinking of sticking to the SSD HDD combo. Or maybe two SSD's. If you partition the HDD will that increase the efficiency of the drive itself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Fully Optimized
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,815
|
Usually no, though I've heard of some users partitioning large hard drives so that the first partition is small so that only the fastest part of the drive is used (since hard drives start storing data on the fastest part of the drive first, then move to the slower bits as they fill up) but unless you need to partition for data storage and tracking, it's fine leaving it alone.
two SSDs in RAID are bloody fast depending on the setup. My goal is to set up two SSDs in RAID 0 sometime later this year. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Solid State Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
|
I have been hearing and reading that setting up SSD's in RAID is the new way to go. I might go with the two SSD's, mainly because I am looking for speed, reliability, and I was leaning that way anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
In Runtime
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 273
|
An SSD by itself screams. You might find that it's fast enough; especially if you're running a SATA III SSD. Problem is that they can be very expensive.
If you're running RAID with any drive, always make sure you have a backup. I do have other Western Digital Caviar drives that have served me well. I've also had good luck with Seagate Barracuda drives. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Solid State Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
|
That is good to know. The SSD's can be very expensive but it seems worth it. If only there was more space on them it would be even better. They sell 512GB SSD's but they're all over $650. Haha. Perhaps I will stick with my original SSD/HDD setup and then later on add another SSD and set them up in RAID and use the HDD to back everything up.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|