What's the difference between these two hard drives?

[Sparkly]

I see the words, but I don't understand them.

All I know is that I want a 1TB external drive with Firewire 800 interface, for HD video and audio projects.

How do I know which of these I want? How are they different in function?

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?Redir=1&description=LaCie%2Dd2+Quadra+1TB+External+eSATA+3Gbits%2FFireWire+800%2FFireWire+400%2FHi%2DSpeed+USB+2%2E0+Hard+Drive%2DExternal+Hard+Drives&dpno=7383574

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?Redir=1&description=LaCie%2DBig+Disk+Extreme%2B+Triple+1TB+External+FireWire+800%2FFireWire+400%2FHi%2DSpeed+USB+2%2E0+Hard+Drive%2DExternal+Hard+Drives&dpno=7274662

[Fumesucker]

1. It appears that the biggest difference is that one has four interface methods..

While the other only has three.. The first model has eSATA as well as USB and Firewire 400 and 800.

Since they both have Firewire 800 then I would get the cheaper one.

[Sparkly]

3. What about that RAID?

I understand that can be about some sort of dual drive or split or partition or something, or, that it can be a way to make things run faster by swapping between two segments. (I don't even know the right words!) Is that basically correct, and would that be helpful for working with large video projects?

[ChromeFoundry]

5. RAID 0

requires a minimum of two hard drives. The data is stored across the containers drives in a striped format...

think of the data being written as a sentence. "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."

Disk1  | Disk2
The      quick
brown    fox
jumped   over
the      lazy
dog      .


This is not exactly how it works, but just to show how the data is alternately stored across two devices. The benefit of RAID 0 is performance only. It can read and write quicker to two drives, and 1/2 the volume of data than to store all data to a single drive. As for fault tolerance, RAID 0 supplies none. If either drive fails, you lose everything. A 1 TB external drive running at RAID 0 requires two 500 GB drives.

Since you are going to accessing this device over a relatively slow connection (Firewire 800), you will never achieve data throughput levels to benefit from a RAID 0 configuration. Think of it as buying a High-Output V8 in a car that will only drive around the block...Is it really worth it?

Some will argue that the RAID 0 causes 1/2 the wear on the individual drives because they are holding half of the data. I disagree, they are both always spinning, and two drives generate twice the heat and power consumption. Most drive failures are caused by heat issues.

Hope that all makes sense...

[Sparkly]

6. Thanks!

Thanks for your answer.

So would this one be preferable? (Any downside?) http://www.provantage.com/lacie-301827u~7LACI0CV.htm

[ChromeFoundry]

7. for home use...

either drive would work out well for you. The eSATA option would provide much faster access for videos, but I'm sure the FW800 is way more than enough. You may want this option in the future... for 20 bucks. If you know you'll never use it, save the 20 bucks.

[Sparkly]

8. Okay, I'm an idiot, but...

How do I know if I have eSATA? :dunce: (I have a new iMac.) :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[ChromeFoundry]

9. Looks like this...

...but smaller! :)

doubtful you have one, because Apple really pushes the FW800 attached devices.

[paparush]

10. Downside - the RAID controller dies..which just happened to a machine at my job

5 year old Dell server. RAID controller died. With RAID 0 the data is striped across the two drives (as described above) and cannot be read by slaving the drives into another machine. In our case we're having to replace the motherboard before we can once again access the data stored on the two hard drives.

[Fumesucker]

11. PCI raid controllers are available very cheaply.

I think I paid under $20 shipped for mine.

[ChromeFoundry]

2. It's a Little cheaper here...

http://www.provantage.com/lacie-301199u~7LACI097.htm

[Sparkly]

4. Thanks!

:hi: