| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dfran
Rated NC-17
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 130
Location: Vermont
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Little Bruin
Boo Boo
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 667
Location: Pic-A-Nic Basket |
|
|
Doctor Feelgood
Arrrrghh!
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 20349
Location: New Jersey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BeerCheeze
*hick*
Joined: 14 Jun 2003
Posts: 9285
Location: At the Bar
|
 Posted: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:21:21 Post Subject: |
  |
|
| Doctor Feelgood wrote: | | I never really bought into the old Raptor hype... SATA 2 ones may be different. But, if I had to choose between two SATA II drives in RAID 0 and a Raptor 150, I'd go with the SATA II combo. Perhaps still some WDs, but maybe Seagate. |
Agree... If you want high performance, go with SCSI. Otherwise SATA II drives are going to give you the best bang for the buck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edvallie
Put Beer Here
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 1255
Location: Computer
|
| Posted: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:44:29 Post Subject: |
|
|
| Dr. EvilCheeze wrote: | | Doctor Feelgood wrote: | | I never really bought into the old Raptor hype... SATA 2 ones may be different. But, if I had to choose between two SATA II drives in RAID 0 and a Raptor 150, I'd go with the SATA II combo. Perhaps still some WDs, but maybe Seagate. |
Agree... If you want high performance, go with SCSI. Otherwise SATA II drives are going to give you the best bang for the buck. |
SCSI is godsent, listen to the great cheezey one here 
_________________
ABAP? What did you call me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrweasel
I can haz cheezbrgr?
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: Pasadena, MD
|
| Posted: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:43:01 Post Subject: |
|
|
mmmm....SAS
:drool:
I'm currently running 2x160GB SATAII drives in RAID 0. Plenty fast for me.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
