Raid Drives: Hitachi 7k3000 Deskstar vs Seagate Barracuda XT

Question

Hi Guys
Thought I'd start a new post for this. Have got all my components sorted for my new pc and that is being built, but I needed to source my raid controller and drives from a different source. So here's the dilema.
Im going to be using an ARC-1880i SAS/SATA 6gbit 8-Port Card and was going to get 3 x Hitachi 7k3000, but they're not in stock and the guy had recommended the Seagate Barracuda XT  SATA 300
Just before I take the plunge are there any advantages to using the Hitachis that I'm unaware of , or is the Seagate OK.
On the Raid side of things, still a bit unsure as to whether to use Raid 3 or Raid 5 . Am I right in thinking most people use raid 5? Just wondering.
Thanks
Nick
P.S Just found out that the Hitachi are very hard to find because of  manufacturing after the Eartquake in Japan.

Answer 1

Unless I'm missing something, current Barracuda XTs are SATA600, not 300. Or did you mean the non-XT Barracudas?
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/internal-storage/
Price wise, the smallest XT is 2TB, and prices at $140
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148506
Same sized Hitachi's are $120
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145473
But if you are going for speed more the capacity, I'd go with the Hitachi's 1.5TG at $65 each
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145520
You'll get a much less expensive solution, especially in the long run when you'll add more drives to your RAID. At $65, you'll be able to have more disks, and be a lot faster.
If total capacity is not as critical as speed, ask them if they can get the 1.5TB Hitachi model instead of the 2TB.
PS: The Hitachi's have been tested on the Areca.
Most people use RAID5 because most RAID controlers out there are RAID5s. Only Areca makes RAID3 cards. Loosely explained, the advantage of RAID3 over RAID5 is the efficiency at reading and writing large files (video files) in a single user environment. Perfect for video editors. Also, if a drive fails, the RAID3 performance is not deteriorated. RAID 3 sucks in a multi user file server environment. Multiple access from different tasks bogs down the troughput drasitically. RAID5 on the other hand is way more efficient at reading multiple small files at the "same" time (documents, database access, etc). There is a good performance drop iwhen a drive fails, but it's still able to respond adequatly in a file server environment.
Many say RAID3 is an old inneficient technology and that it's dead. And RAID5 has evolved and is better at everything.  Truth is, there is no one solution that does everything well.  In reality, each has their place, and it depends largely on your workflow. So I suggest that, when your system is ready, if you have the time, try testing your RAID in both levels, and benchmark it yourself.
Message was edited by: Frederic Segard