I'm working on putting together a new machine for general home use and gaming, and I'm torn on how to go about storage. It's been quite awhile since I built a machine so I'm really out of the loop on current HD technology.

At first I was thinking of going with a 150g Raptor for XP Pro and applications, and a 500g WD or Seagate drive for general storage, but I'm not so sure now that this set up would be best for my needs. I want fast load and seek times obviously, but I'm not sure how much is enough.

So any advice would be appreciated. Should I just stick with a single drive like a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11? If so, how would you suggest I partition it to maximize performance? Or is the dual drive solution a better way to go right now?

Do you normally have a good backup procedure?

If yes and money is not a problem, I would go with a dual Raptor 150GB in a RAID-0. I do not have this configuration but it what I would like. I only have two Seagate 320GB in RAID-0 and it not bad. I have an external backup and an on-line backup.

With that, do you still need an extra HD? Depend of your need in storage. That extra HD would be slower than your RAID.

RAID is expensive, complex, and not appreciably faster than SATA drives. Raptors are 5x the cost per GB od a Sata drive. Get multiple disks, put the OS on the first one and data on the other(s), and the system will fly -

Why expensive? It on-board and take 2 minutes to configure in the BIOS. Yes, a little bit complicated to install the OS because you need the drivers on a CD (provided normally with the MotherBoard).

Yes the raptor are more expensive but the OP was ready to get one.
Yes todays HD are getting closer to the Raptor.

Me, I noticed a good difference between a single drive vs a raid-0.

I would go at least with 2 Seagate 7200.11 500GB in RAID-0 and not separate.

You could eventually, like me, install an extra drive and do dual boot (bios controlled - much safer).

The thought of setting up a RAID intimidates me because I know very little about setting one up. My backup procedure needs some work, so I'd obviously need to do a better job there if I were to consider a RAID setup.

The thing is, if I were to opt for two 500gb 7200.11 drives, I'd only be saving about $50 vs. the Raptor dual drive arrangement. I'd obviously have more space, but I really don't think I need a TB of space right now heh. I guess two Seagate 250gb 7200.10 drives would be an option, RAID or not?

You're setup is good. You'll be happy with that setup.

If it's my system and install OS on RAID 0. I'll be only use as a DEMO Machine. Since the probabilty of reinstalling everything again will be within 3 to 10 mothns for me. However I know some people manage to get at least more than a year.

1 raptor for programs and 1 for data a better setup.
2 hard drive for programs; 1 is cloned but NOT raid and 1 HD for data is better, Since you'll always have 1 ready in an event your OS stop working.

last time i checked raid was just a type of configuration not an interface like SATA. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT NHOBO.

Just keep in mind that 7200.10 and 7200.11 are two different generation. 7200.11 are better and that why I recommanded two of them. I know most of us don't need 1TB!

RAID is expensive because it cuts your disk space in half. Raptors are 5x the cost per GB of standard drives. In RAID they are 10x the cost.

Who said it was an interface?

I am sorry, I don't understand.

"it cuts your disk space in half"? Are you talking about RAID-1? If the case, yes but have a fault tolerance but no speed improvment. I am taking about RAID-0 (Striping) for a maximum of performance. Yes, more than 2 could be used.

If I have 2 150GB Raptor at 200$ each = 400$.

If I RAID-0 them will give me a 300GB drive. The cost per GB will remain the same and won't double?

1 Raptor = 200$ / 150GB = 1.33$/GB
2 Raptor = 400$ / 300GB = 1.33$/GB

1 Seagate 7200.11 500GB at 120$ = 0.24$/GB

1.33 / 0.24 = 5.5 => Ratio between a common HD vs Raptor => ouch!

But I totally agree with you about "Raptor are expensive for their size which means the cost per GB is quite high".

Raptor is no doubt a fast hard drive but how much are you willing to spend on hard drive performance?

This following guideline is merely a point of reference.

SCSI HD best RAID 0 - Best. 40-50% better depending on the setup.

2 Raptors Raid 0 – Fastest access Write and Read – great for loading and writing. Cons: Reading is faster than writing is limited by the speed of HD source, still faster than normal HD. 40% better.

1 raptor faster access write and read – good for loading and writing. Like 2 R R-0 limited by the speed of HD source, still faster than normal HD. 30% better.

2 HD Raid 0 – fast-faster access writes and read, good for loading and writing. Like 2 R R-0, limited by the speed of HD source, still faster than normal HD. 20% better.

2 HD Raid 1 fast-faster access read only. Good for loading and reading. 10% better.

1 New HD. Good

Raptor is no doubt a fast hard drive but how much are you willing to spend on hard drive performance?
Here’s a close explanation on hard drive.
SCSI HD best RAID 0 - Best. 40-50% better depending on the setup.
2 Raptors Raid 0 – Fastest access Write and Read – great for loading and writing. Cons: Reading is faster than writing is limited by the speed of HD source, still faster than normal HD. 40% better
1 raptor faster access write and read – good for loading and writing. Like 2 R R-0 limited by the speed of HD source, still faster than normal HD. 30% better
2 HD Raid 0 – fast-faster access writes and read, good for loading and writing. Like 2 R R-0, limited by the speed of HD source, still faster than normal HD. 20% better
2 HD Raid 1 fast-faster access read only. Good for loading and reading. 10% better
1 Standard HD. Good

I know you want the fastest, but what and how much do you feel like spending on? So if you can't decide just get 2 identical hard drive and use 1 for OS and one for programs and general storage. And if you decide to get raptor later on you can always reassign the drives.

I know you want the fastest, but what and how much do you feel like spending on? So if you can't decide just get 2 identical hard drive and use 1 for OS or/and programs and one for general storage. And if you decide to get the raptor/s later on you can always reassign the drives.

If your other components are good, it is justifiable to spend on a Raptor.
Raptors are not justified in budget computers. Not sure what components you have. It is better to spend elsewhere before spending on a Raptor if needed. The advantage of the Raptor is seek time.

20-40% better is BS.

"RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."

Read the article at AnandTech

How RAID-1 is faster than 1 drive? It simply a way to keep two HD synch so if one fail, you can continue working. When you replace the failed, a resynch will be done (slow). I would say It might be a little bit slower than one because the controller must wait until both are done. That why you must have two identical and not a super fast and a slow one.

For reading, I guess only one will be used and when writing, the information will be stored on both at the same time.