2XRaid 32GB Cache v.s 3XRaid 16GB Cache?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jazz1, Mar 22, 2008.

  1. jazz1 macrumors 65816

    jazz1

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Mid-West USA
    #1
    I need to populate the bays of my new MacPro 2.66 with 5GB RAM. The stock HD turns out to be a Seagate 250GB HD ST3250820A. I've found them online and wonder if I just should RAID three or four of them as opposed to one Seagate 500GBs or 750 with 32GB cache? These would all be a Raid run by Apple software not a RAID card.

    My use would be with Adobe Lightroom and some light video work. I do have 1TB of external storage.
     
  2. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #2
    With RAID 0, the more drives you have, the better the performance (in general). Provided the rotation speed is identical, then three drives with 16MB of cache each will be faster then two drives with 32MB of cache, each.
     
  3. supercooled macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    #3
    OVERKILL! Just throw in 2 Raptors and call it a day. I'm running 2 Samsungs F1s with 32MB cache in Raid1 but it isn't perceptively faster than my regular 16mb cache raid1 setup which were 2 WDC 500GB.
     
  4. jazz1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jazz1

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Mid-West USA
    #4
    Apple's supplied 250GB in a four bay MacPro is like buying a megapixel camera and getting a 1MB media card ;)

    The Raptors would certainly give me bragging rights! But I'm wondering if I could live with a couple of Samsungs in 400GB or 750. They don't make a 500 as far as I know.
     
  5. Mr.PS macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #5
    I run two Samsung F1's in raid0 and they're very fast, they're both 32mb drives. I would say go with 3 drives, they will always be faster regardless of cache. Save yourself some money though and get 2 x 32mb cache drives though. HDD's as a whole are on their way out and solid state is taking over, not really wise to invest in a declining technology.
     
  6. Aea macrumors 6502a

    Aea

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #6
    You'll get less noise and more performance (for a better performance & space : dollar ratio) with larger, slower, higher density drives.
     
  7. supercooled macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    #7
    Bragging rights, hah! If you want some major bragging rights, get 3x 30" ACDs then upload your shots to Flickr.

    Seriously, man. I wanted a decked out Mac as well but after ordering 8GB of memory, I came to my sense. I'm barely using 2GB. I will stop this insanity once my 2x160GB Raptors have arrived and installed. I swear ;)
     

    Attached Files:

  8. jazz1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jazz1

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Mid-West USA
    #8
    I've got 6GB on my 2.66 and I'm seeing 3GB of free memory running Safari, iTunes and iChat. So for normal everyday use I'm only using half the memory. Adobe Lightroom brought it down to 2.80. Not bad.

    Let us know how the Raptors work for you.

    I'm seeing 150GB Raptors at Dell. I'm also seeing something under Dell's name as Raptor at 160 GB, and a Raptor X for way more money. What is the difference I wonder?
     

Share This Page