whats the difference between scsi,ata,sata 150,sata 3.0?

is this the way win configures the drive?tring to figure out which is better 2 buy for speed in data transfer and gaming.i keep reading on the forum that rain is better.how do you install sata and raid on your pc?do i have to buy a special program?i read that raid,mirrors the pc main drive,so its sort of for security right?and what do the different numbers mean in sata and raid?like raid o,raid 0\1.if the pc hard drive mirrors itself how does that make it faster?is it the same thing as sli where it doubles the speed but shares the size.i dont know just guessing.building my 1st pc want it to be increadible.thanks.......probably everyone knows by know i post alot[lol]but i also help so thats kool

 

SATA is the fastest of the drives (i think) ok, raid, is like this thing that a sata drive can do. go here if you want to figure things out about it
http://www.acnc.com/raid.html

 

thanks.......i red that thanks.so what that told me is i want to buy 2 disk drives put them in raid level 1.gives me the double read and highest level of write and .kool,so how is that written when you buy hareware? or is it raid 0/1 because your mirroring and stripping the same disk 2 times.i learn more eveyday.this forum should change its name to tLc afterdark[lol]and the optical drives for this to work have to be sata?or it doesnt matter.im trying to build a real quick pc that wont go out of date 6months from now.and one more thing......how do i get windows to recognise what im doing?the raid.then they talk about level 3 raid which looks like the best but is that just 3 disks raided in raid 1?im getting alittle confused

 

those are all diffrent levels, i don't think it has to do with how many disks you have. but i'm not sure. as for it needing to be sata, i think it does, since i've never had a drive that could do raid till i got the sata drive. that, and if i'm not mistaken, sata drives have the highest transfer rate

 

Heres a link to explain a raid setup http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum...15844&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1, it's for raid 0 but it does explain the other types of raid array as well, found it quite usefull for when i setup my raid 0 array

 

TO summarise, S-ATA is only advantageous for RAID setups, IDE and SATA are almost identical in performance for single drives.

A lot of motherboards will support RAID without you needing an extra card if you use S-ATA drives, so that's another advantage.

RAID: a very short summary:

0: two or more disks together to make one very big and very fast drive.
1: two disks togetherthat carry the same reliability.

These are the only ones you should need as a home user, businesses may use 3 and 5, but that's mkerely taking data reliability to the extreme.

Most storage junkies (such as myself) will go (or will be going) for 0.

 

oh its s--ata drives.so there ata drives with a s in front of it.so sata is the best?i was reading about raid 1,it said that 0 is the norm but 1 writes better and reads double and there less errors on the disk.how do you set it up?is it easy?raid definely sounds like something i should have if im a game junkie[lol]and have the need for speed.so raid 0 gives you more disk space and speed out of all the drives and raid 1 im a little confused about.you only can use 2 disks?

 

RAID is done with 2 or more disks.

RAID 0 (stripe mode) is called so because it can be setup in that way with ANY NUMBER of discs. Each drive adds to the total capacity and total speed of the network.

RAID 1,2,3... etc. means the drives are mirrored, with each increase in number being another disk that shares the information.

If we have two 200GB S-ATA drives for example, that read at about 50MB/s on their own.

RAID 0 will give us a 400GB drive that reads at a little under 100MB/s
RAID 1 will give us a 200GB drive that reads at a little above 50MB/s but is 4x as reliable as RAID 0.

S-ATA is est for raid because most modern motherboards have an integrated feature that supports it - you need no additionalo hardware. However, bear in mind that S-ATA drives have their own power and data connectors and you will need to have an adapter for the molex power connector if your power suply does not include thise used by the drive. Data connectors you will need to buy in either instance.

IDE (a.k.a. just ATA without the S) will mean you do not need additional cables, just plug the drives in like any other, except you will need a PCI card that supports RAID, and additional IDE cables. (one cable will go from the drives to the card, and another from the card to the board's IDE slot). The IDE option will be slightly slower, however, as the drives will be capped at either 100MB/s or 133MB/s depending on the age of the disks. Many drives in RAID 0 will exceed that if used in short bursts.

Hope that's all you need to know.

Any further questions, you only need ask!

 

i think im starting to get it.raid 0:it always adds the storage together lets say 160gb + 160gb=360gb so that just double my storage and my reads will double.if i add a third disks it will make it bigger in size and give me a faster reads but if the disk were to get corupted,i would lose all data possibly because they act as one big drive.now the only reason raid 1 is better is because your adding a mirror to the stripe.so the disks,set up in pairs instead of together in a bunch.so in your senario 2 disks made 400gb of storage,i would need two huge drives [dont make that big]or i could set up 2-200gb drives and 2-200gb drives[only 400gb on 2 channels] but in raid 1 they could fix errors and be more reliable.raid 0 that would give me 800gb in one big drive,but if there is a problem on one disk your beat,they all fail.thats what im worring about[lol]..am i understanding correctly?thanks alot...so the bottom line is money really,if i can afford 4-6 disks in raid 1 it really a better system,so the pc is protected from :crashing,viruses,corruption,stuff like that right?the more sets the faster and more reliable.with raid 0 better performance for less money and less reliability cause once they go they all go.thank you so much.i hope i got it

 

Basically except:

160+160 =320 not 360

and
They DO make 400GB Drives, but they're expensive.

To be honest, modern disks seem reliable enough so RAID 0 isn't too much of a danger any more.

It just doesn't make much sense to me paying a fortune for four disks that do the job of two 'just in case'

Plus of course, I'll need a RAID card whatever in that instance, as four disks = four S-ATA sockets. Plus of course thats more juice from the power supply, and a higher electricity bill!

If I ran 4 disks instead of two 12 hours a day for 5 years, that would work out an extra 650KWh of electricity. In my area that'd be about the cost of one of the disk drives. That's a lot of extra money....

 

i screw up the math[lol]but i get it.when you put it like that in electricity bill that makes alot of cense.raid 0 it is.thank you so much.i also didnt know you needed different slots on the motherboard per disk.i though you slave them together.im glad you added that.so i need to get a motherboard that supports sata also it has to have at least to or more raid slots on it or i have to buy a pci card.the slots on the motherboard are probably alot faster cause they go directly to the sorce .hey man peace thanks again.sorry about the post the other day,i was just getting frustrated ...lol...to much info,not enough knowledge..all at once...freaked me out alittle bit.[je..je...je]

 

i was just looking at motherboards like the new sli fatil1ty abit it says its compatable with raid 0, raid 1,raid 0/1+,and some kind of job raid.what do the last 2 raids do?r they better then 0 and 1?

 

RAID 0+1 and 1+0 are, unsurprisingly combinations of RAID 0 and RAID 1.

As i understand it, RAID 0+1 would be a RAID 0 stripe (i.e. 2 or 3 drives in a stripe) Mirrored (so 4 or 6 drives, meaning that you have the reliability of the RAID mirror, and the storage/high speed of the RAID stripe)

RAID 1+0 would be two or more Mirrors, striped together. (i.e. say 2 or 3 drives all making a mirror of one drive, and then those drives are striped together).

That's mighty complex and confusing. I'll try and simplify:

I'll use a slightly larger disk array than you'll need to illustrate the effects, 1+0 and 0+1 are perilously similar when you only have 2 drives.

Let's say we have eight drives, labelled Drive A to Drive H. Each one is 200GB in size, and can transfer data at 60MB/second.

If we were to set up a standard RAID 0 stripe, we would have a 1600MB Drive reading at 480MB/second - with no protection.

If we were to set up a standard RAID 1 mirror we would have a 200MB drive reading at probably around 80MB/second - with more protection than you would ever need.

However, if we set up a RAID 0+1 configuration we could have an 800MB drive reading at about 300MB/second, with protection OR
a 400MB drive reading at about 150MB/second with lots of protection

If we set up a RAID 1+0 configuration, we could have a 200MB drive mirrored, then striped, so we'd end up with the same result, but with the data arranged differently.

This article tries to explain it a bit better if you're still confused:

http://www.ofb.net/~jheiss/raid10/

 

thanks for answering.to make anything but raid 0 is crazy unless your building a server which im not at the moment but its good to know thanks.my need pc are going to be this..what do you think?:
1.hiper r ps[580v..sli ready]
2.thermaltake shark case[removeable mb tray,watercooling ready]
3.hitachi deskstar t7k250..160gbx3[sata 3gbs...480gbhard drive.only$82usa each]
4.cosair 3200xlpro..xms series[2225 timings.. 1gb.pc3200ddr400.match pair ram][green w/little leds..not the big sign on top]
5.abit fatal1ty sli[$202newegg]or msi neo4 plat w/sound blaster live chip or dfi landparty ut nf4-4x atx...or asus a8n deluxe sli
###cant make up my mind..can u help me###i like to play alot of games..but i also surf the net download burn,etc###which is the better board that i can overclock and do everything i listed above
6. sony ide dvd burner[model dru720a...is ide sata?dual layer dvd burner]
7.thermaltake big water or cl-p0025 hs
8.win x64 or win xp pro[full-retail] ###not sure if compatible x64]
9.i/o magic floppy
10.silverstones fm121[they have like 120 cm of air flow the highest i ever saw with 21dbs of sound which is pretty quit 120x120
11.3 cooldrives 6 by cooler master
12.uv light or cathod and a dvd/cd writer

hows this look in raid o?thanks again for all your help..picking up the parts next week cant wait

 

Well you haven't actually stated a processor in that lot...
The ABit and Asus motherboards will likely be better for overclocking.
I haven't used an Abit motherboard, but I may buy one not too far down the line...
As for Asus, most of their board support asynchronous overclocking (better), and therefore that's a good choice.
CPU i'd recommend a high-end Athlon 64, maybe a 3800 or 4000+. Check that the motherboards you're looking at are compatible with the right socket - You'll want 939 for Athlon 64.
GPU i'll leave that open although since you're looking at SLi, it would be best to go for say 2x 6800GTs or (depending on how much money you have) maybe even 2x 7800s...

For your RAID setup, I tend to find that bigger drives are usually better value (i.e. more GB/$).
The RAID setup that I will hopefully be buying later this week will be two 250GBs, in RAID 0 to make 500.
These drives represent the best GB/£ ratio for me, so maybe you should check how much this would cost.
Also bear in mind that only two drives means greater reliability.

 

oh...so the bigger the drive x2 is better then smaller x 3 or 4...ok.was looking at that asus deluxe but that abit fital1ty looks so sweet...but sweet isnt always better.im going to try 7800 gtx[490..overclocked]xfx...they look pretty sweet.they say one is ok with this day and age but two is out of this world..trying to buy 2...have to talk the wife[i mean boss...lol]into it,very hard to go from 2000 usd to 3000usd[lol]thanks for the info.what do u mean by asyncro instead of syncro which my emachines 2825 is in now[i know cause of everest told me]is syncro bad?is that why my pc cant be overclocked?everytime i write to you,you hit me with another thing to learn[ilmo]je...je..je..how can i tell on like newegg or zipzoom?

 

Synchronisation is bad for overclocking. Here's why.

When you up the speed of a processor by overclocking it, you up the front side bus (why you have to do it this way is another story, but if you're interested tell me, because I do know, i just don't want to complicate things right now).

Increasing the front side bus, means increasing the speed of every item that is attached to the motherboard, so not only is your CPU, RAM and Graphics card going to end up overclocked, but so is your modem, USB controller and sound card. And that they're not going to like - hence why overclocking can cause random things like sound being of poor quality or certain buttons not working on your keyboard (!)

Asus motherboards (or some of them anyway) and a few other high spec boards support asynchronous overclocking.
This means they up the speed of the processor and RAM and NOTHING ELSE. Basically meaning you can overclock much further and still have a stable system.

If the sites where you're obtaining your components from don't say, check about the board you're buying on the manufacturer website. If they mention nothing about it, chances are it's not supported.

The reason for two big drives rather than several small ones is that while the maximum speed output of the array is lower, reliability is greater.
I know we discussed how it's better for faster than stupidly high reliability. However, in this instance it is important to remember that ordinary S-ATA is limited to 150MB/second, REGARDLESS of what the disk drives can put out. That means that there is no point in having a faster array of systems, because the speed doesn't get used.
S-ATA II offers a faster data rate (I think 300MB/second) , but the disks themselves tend to be more expensive in this field, so it's up to you.

 

know i get it.so the speed is set at 150mb per sec not faster but sata 3 is 300gb so there better faster and more reliable cause you dont have to cover so many disks just 2.what im saying is 2 is better then 3 or 4 less clutter.thats what your telling me.kool.now i have to find sata 3 on a 250 to 500 gb hd.that will yeild me 250 + 250...500gb storage and a faster data rata in raid 0, but the read will always be up to 300mb seconds no=more no mater how many disks i use.thats the way it works.im going to look today probably end up going with the asus premium or deluxe[one has a pipe,one has a fan on the north brige[think thats what it is call where the nf4 chip is]not sure which is better do you?thanks for everything sam..peace

 

You're welcome.

My RAID setup will be two 250GB Western Digital Caviar S-ATA I drives. I got my payment slip today so hopefully i'll be able to order them in a couple of day's time.

Good luck with your system, and hope it goes well!

 

thanks man...waiting for my check to clear tuesday.then im off to the races too.good luck too.ill check out those hard drives,thanks.if i need some help next week ill write to you here or hopefully ill be telling you how great my new pc runs from my new pc...lol...peace and thanks... be talking to you by the end of next week....i hope[lol]if i have a problem ill try to email you here instead of making another new topic that no-answers[lol]