How Much Faster is Raid 0 VS One HD ?

[boyz]

Hey Guys I would like to know How much faster would Raid 0 be vs a single hd. I use The Quantum for storage. Thanks in advance

P 4 2.4 GHZ @ 533 Mhz
1 GB DDR 2700
1 Maxtor 60 GB @ 7200 RPM
1 Quantum 30 GB @ 7200 RPM

 

[gibbsman]

Personally I don't think it is incredibly faster, but it is somewhat faster due to the way RAID works.

That's just my personal experience though.

 

[Ketchup]

What two drives will you be putting in RAID-O? If you do the two drives listed, you will lose 30 GB.

 

[jdogg707]

Well, it depends on what kind of tasks you are doing. When working with larger files like in video editing RAID 0 at least will make a big difference in the speed, but when doing day to day stuff you probably won't notice it. Now I like my WD Raptors in RAID 0, with those I feel a big difference in just about everything, but they are SATA and 10K RPM...so that is the main part of it! Anandtech and Tom's Hardware both have some descent articles on RAID and the different levels and most importantly the performance gains or losses you might incur by going with a RAID setup. I would check those out, compare it to how you'll be using your setup, and see what you think.

 

[RKumar]

 

[RKumar]

With raid-0, reads on an average will be slower than 1 HDD but writes are faster.

Its NOT recommend doing raid with <100GB per HDD. Main adv. of raid will be with large video files.
So with 30 & 60GB you are better off with 2 individual HDDs.

I would prefer the following config if you have tons of HDDs.
- 80GB WDSE for OS and Applications [Primary Master]
- 120GB WDSE for data regular apps
- 2 x 160/200GB WDSE on RAID-0 for multi-media [mps, movie, video songs, DVD-rips, etc.]
That way i don't have to worry about loosing multi-media stuff in case one of RAID hdds break apart.

 

[RKumar]

With raid-0, reads on an average will be slower than 1 HDD but writes are faster.

Its NOT recommend doing raid with <100GB per HDD. Main adv. of raid will be with large video files.
So with 30 & 60GB you are better off with 2 individual HDDs.

I would prefer the following config if you have tons of HDDs.
- 80GB WDSE for OS and Applications [Primary Master]
- 120GB WDSE for data regular apps
- 2 x 160/200GB WDSE on RAID-0 for multi-media [mps, movie, video songs, DVD-rips, etc.]
That way i don't have to worry about loosing multi-media stuff in case one of RAID hdds break apart.

 

[bocamojo]

A few years ago, I did some research on this (w/ 7200 RPM drives), and determined that it really wasn't worth it for me to go RAID 0. From what I remember, with 2 drives in a RAID 0, the write speeds were a few MB's / sec faster, but the read speeds were a few MB's / sec slower. If you went with a 4 drive RAID 0, you saw a significant increase in write speeds, as well as an even more obvious slowdown in read speeds. I decided for myself that RAID 0 wasn't worth it for me, but I'm not a heavy gamer, videophile, etc. If you use your PC for a specific purpose or application, this should be your determining factor in deciding to go RAID 0 or not. That, and your budget. For me, I don't want to waste any HD space or extra money just to get a few extra MB's / sec write speeds.

P.S. I looked over an old storagereview article concerning RAID 0, and a statement they made concerning this configuration, in comparison to running a single HD was this:

"If we compare the performance of the single HDD and RAID0 array, the latter will turn out faster when working with larger files (e.g. in SoundForge), no matter what firmware the drives have. When working with smaller files, the RAID0 array doesn't have any advantage over the single hard drive."

 

[boyz]

Well I read the article from anandtech and i think raid is not worth it because i do not always use my pc for graphics so raid would slow down my pc when accessing small files, in my server raid would be the way to go. thanks guys

 

[T9D]

..

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
My reads are faster and my writes are a lot faster. Feels much more zippy. I can tell a difference in daily tasks (huge difference in benchmarks too). I wonder if all these people who commented even have raid.

I have RAID 0 with two Western Digital Raptors, but also had it with two 80GB WD SE Drives, feels much faster with the raptors...didn't tell a huge difference with my IDE RAID setup...

 

[spclwpns]

xerosleep, I agree completely.

 

[Murr]

I think a lot depends on what stripe size you use. If you use a fairly small stripe size, it will work well with small files, but its better to use a larger stripe size for video editing because you dont need it to be split into such small pieces and it wont use the processor as much.

At least, thats what I think.

Of course, you dont want it to be too small.

 

[sharkeeper]

SCSI RAID with 4 or more disks striped across the channels of a mid to high end HBA is quite fast.

Click it or Ticket!

-DAK-

 

[Insidious]

You can see a comparison I did here.

The array let me avoid buying a larger HD, but you can see the speed is nothing to write home about.

-Sid

 

[sharkeeper]

Try running ATTO with 32MB size! Your drive's buffers are 8MB! The tests are skewed because the file(s) can fit in the buffer!

-DAK-

 

[T9D]

..

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: RKumar
With raid-0, reads on an average will be slower than 1 HDD but writes are faster.

Its NOT recommend doing raid with <100GB per HDD. Main adv. of raid will be with large video files.
So with 30 & 60GB you are better off with 2 individual HDDs.

I would prefer the following config if you have tons of HDDs.
- 80GB WDSE for OS and Applications [Primary Master]
- 120GB WDSE for data regular apps
- 2 x 160/200GB WDSE on RAID-0 for multi-media [mps, movie, video songs, DVD-rips, etc.]
That way i don't have to worry about loosing multi-media stuff in case one of RAID hdds break apart.

where did you read about the read being slower...

it's tested to be faster in benchmarks. if the data is on both drives.. it should be able to read from both drives simutaneously.. i have no idea why you would think it would be slower...

maybe the access times are slightly slower... but the transfer rate is faster..

 

[vaporize]

correct me if i am wrong but if you dont care about the risk of losing your files in RAID 0 then RAID 0 is the better choice. doesnt RAID 0 load windows xp faster during boot since its a big os and i reboot almost twice a day to keep my system clean. large games should also be faster to load.

 

[SickBeast]

Much much faster. The question you should really be asking tho is about the stability of such a setup. I had an 80gb r-0 array get corrupted on me.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Much much faster. The question you should really be asking tho is about the stability of such a setup. I had an 80gb r-0 array get corrupted on me.

You must be overclocked. My friend can't get over 150 FSB or his drives get corrupted. That's why it's nice to have a PCI bus that is locked at 33 MHz.

 

[nanyangview]

about raid corruption, if you use the Nforce 2 or the Canterwood MOBO raid chipset, will OC still affect it?

 

[LED]

Had a few but real difference about 50% as opposed of the theory 100%

 

[Insidious]

Edited to remove annoyed tone

1. Back up your data
2. Check your hardware and OS setups if you can't make a stable Raid-0 array

Originally posted by: shuttleteam
Try running ATTO with 32MB size! Your drive's buffers are 8MB! The tests are skewed because the file(s) can fit in the buffer!

-DAK-

and finally, those WD300BB drives have a 2MB cache... not 8MB.

-Sid

 

[sharkeeper]

The JB disks have 8MB buffers...

RAID is worth it if you take the time to set it up right, have the resources and most importantly have the need.

Loading game maps quickly is obviously not the goal here!

-DAK-