Is hardware raid worth the extra money?

[no0b]

I am going to setup a raid 0 array with 2 80gb WD SE drive. I was wondering if a Hardware raid card IE the 3ware 7000 is worth it or am I better getting a simple software raid like Highpoints 404 card.

The computer will mostly be used for gaming (yea I know there is no performance gain with raid 0 for gaming) But I would like the useful high through put while sending files over a local lan but I would also not like to suffer huge cpu overhead that the software raid cards might give. So I was wondering is the decrease (if any) of cpu usage worth paying the extra price of hardware raid?

The computer is the dell 710MIR deal back in December.
2.4ghz 533 fsb P4
512MB PC1066 Ram


/edit: To clarify when I say software raid I mean Firmware raid. (I wanna still be able to boot)

 

[dakels]

Unless you need the redundency, your needs don't even call for a RAID IMO. I would also not use a software RAID. I wouldn't doubt that speed in the lost CPU cycles counteracts the speed benefit of a RAID.

Hardware RAID controllers are so cheap nowadyas. If you want to go for a RAID, which again I see as unecessary in your setup, I'd spend the small bit for a hardware controller.

 

[chizow]

I'll let you know tomorrow; that's when my 3ware 7000-2 arrrives from Newegg (hopefully 🙂 ). I've tinkered with 2 various softRAID cards over the last month or so, and one was pathetic and one was quite excellent. The Adaptec 1200A (HPT370) is a definite underperformer, meanwhile the Koutech I/O Flex (Sil680) performed very well. From all indications the Highpoint Rocketraid 133 is the best softRAID card for RAID 0. Both left me somewhat dissatisfied, so I went ahead and spent the extra money on a card that has all the features I want.

As for performance in gaming, it does make quite a noticeable difference in load times (especially games like BF 1942). Also, if your comp ever needs to access the swap file, it does so more seamlessly. Other than that, I notice the upgrade the most during Windows boot-up, but also when recording/encoding/decoding through my TV Tuner (when I can get it working, friggin Catalysts).

Chiz

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: dakels
Unless you need the redundency, your needs don't even call for a RAID IMO. I would also not use a software RAID. I wouldn't doubt that speed in the lost CPU cycles counteracts the speed benefit of a RAID.

Hardware RAID controllers are so cheap nowadyas. If you want to go for a RAID, which again I see as unecessary in your setup, I'd spend the small bit for a hardware controller.

I know I dont need it but I have 2 harddrives the same size so what would any self respecting geek do. I just wanna know is it worth the money or how much of a difference will I see.

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: chizow
I'll let you know tomorrow; that's when my 3ware 7000-2 arrrives from Newegg (hopefully 🙂 ). I've tinkered with 2 various softRAID cards over the last month or so, and one was pathetic and one was quite excellent. The Adaptec 1200A (HPT370) is a definite underperformer, meanwhile the Koutech I/O Flex (Sil680) performed very well. From all indications the Highpoint Rocketraid 133 is the best softRAID card for RAID 0. Both left me somewhat dissatisfied, so I went ahead and spent the extra money on a card that has all the features I want.

As for performance in gaming, it does make quite a noticeable difference in load times (especially games like BF 1942). Also, if your comp ever needs to access the swap file, it does so more seamlessly. Other than that, I notice the upgrade the most during Windows boot-up, but also when recording/encoding/decoding through my TV Tuner (when I can get it working, friggin Catalysts).

Chiz

Cool, Yea I did a search and found you posted you bought one just hoping you would drop in.

Thanks in advance for any input.

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: no0b
I know I dont need it but I have 2 harddrives the same size so what would any self respecting geek do. I just wanna know is it worth the money or how much of a difference will I see.

😀 agreed

chiz made a good post

 

[dakels]

p.s.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: no0b

I know I dont need it but I have 2 harddrives the same size so what would any self respecting geek do. I just wanna know is it worth the money or how much of a difference will I see.

LoL, exactly why I went RAID. 🙂 2 x 116 GB partitions don't offer any benefit to me, but I picked up 2 120GB Ultras for dirt-cheap (I wouldn't have been able to use the Staples $50 off $200 unless I got a 2nd one). What is nice is that with approx 232GB on a striped RAID 0 Array, I can set-up a 150GB main OS and app. partition and a 80GB partition for data on the RAID 0 array. I have a 3rd Maxtor 80GB Ultra (gotta love 'Raples) which I use to periodically back-up the 80GB data partition. I've noticed some time ago that my CPU/system platform handled any application fine, the only bottleneck was the load times for certain apps; basically my system was always waiting on interface devices like my HDD's and Optical drives. Even a slight 15% increase in performance would be noticeable and worthwhile for me, but I've seen much better results than that. Again, BF 1942 loads in about 1/4 the time, and there is no stuttering or system slow down when I am recording/ripping media files.

Chiz

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: dakels
p.s.

yea I've seen it but it doesnt go into depth of cpu usage. I've also seen the storage review but its still a review of the 7500 series of 3ware card but not the 7000.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: no0b

Originally posted by: dakels
p.s.

yea I've seen it but it doesnt go into depth of cpu usage. I've also seen the storage review but its still a review of the 7500 series of 3ware card but not the 7000.

Try this link 🙂.

Again, it is the 7500-4 being compared, however, from the tech sheets at 3ware, the Math Coprocessor used in the Escalade 7000-2 and the 7500 series is identical. There is less onboard RAM (1/4) but the 7000-2 doesn't need to perform any parity calculations. That link is for a 2 disk raid array, my guess is the 7000-2 will perform very similarly in a 2 disk RAID 0 array (okay, thats what I'm HOPING 😉 ). I skimmed through that review just looking at the 2-disk RAID 0 benches, and it was enough to convince me to give it a shot.

Chiz

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: chizow Again, BF 1942 loads in about 1/4 the time
Chiz

heh... that reason alone would be good enough for me. I hate waiting for that first map load. :disgust:

 

[charlie21]

As far as RAID being useful for sending files over a LAN, I don't think you'd get much if any of a performance increase. 100 Mb/s = 12.5 MB/s, which even a single 7200RPM hard drive can easily saturate. About CPU usage, I wouldn't worry too much about that unless you're doing a -lot- of file sharing. It might be worth the extra $ to have a hardware solution, though, which I'm sure is a heck of a lot more reliable than any kind of software setup you could buy.

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: charlie21
As far as RAID being useful for sending files over a LAN, I don't think you'd get much if any of a performance increase. 100 Mb/s = 12.5 MB/s, which even a single 7200RPM hard drive can easily saturate. About CPU usage, I wouldn't worry too much about that unless you're doing a -lot- of file sharing. It might be worth the extra $ to have a hardware solution, though, which I'm sure is a heck of a lot more reliable than any kind of software setup you could buy.

From expeirance I have only been able to use 30 Mb/s sustained and 60 Mb/s burst from a single 80GB with 8mb cache over a lan. The way I tested it isn't really scientific but I used task managers Networking viewer.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I dont think Raid0 with 2 drives is very intensive ... software should be fine ... I'd only go with a pricy Hardware Card if I was running Raid 5 .. or soemething that actually requires computation

 

[ChefJoe]

Beh, I have a HPT370 Raid on my abit BE6-II 2.0 and I wouldnt' pay extra for it. I've used it for mirrored drives, but doing a backup to a totally different drive seems better (mirror means no speed gain). If you can span drives with modern NT based OS's (if you need to do so) then it seems safer not to try to merge HDs.... unless you go raid-5, where I think the redundancy with a little performance gain seems good option.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: no0b

Originally posted by: charlie21
As far as RAID being useful for sending files over a LAN, I don't think you'd get much if any of a performance increase. 100 Mb/s = 12.5 MB/s, which even a single 7200RPM hard drive can easily saturate. About CPU usage, I wouldn't worry too much about that unless you're doing a -lot- of file sharing. It might be worth the extra $ to have a hardware solution, though, which I'm sure is a heck of a lot more reliable than any kind of software setup you could buy.

From expeirance I have only been able to use 30 Mb/s sustained and 60 Mb/s burst from a single 80GB with 8mb cache over a lan. The way I tested it isn't really scientific but I used task managers Networking viewer.

I agree with charlie21. Unless you have a gigabit LAN connection, your hard drive is going to twiddle its thumbs as it tries to cram data through that tiny 12.5Mb/second network connection. I have a 15000rpm SCSI drive with peak sustained throughput of around 60Mb/second, and when I'm pulling data through my in-office 10/100 switch to do an Office2000 setup on another machine, my NIC is maxed, while my hard drive is all, "are you ready for another lil' spoonful of data now...? Open wide for the airplane! 😀"

Now a drive-to-drive transfer on my SCSI cable... THAT's another story, and you can tell they're really working with your eyes closed.

 

[no0b]

chizow, did you get the raid card today?

 

[mrman3k]

I wouldn't go for the RAID setup in your situation.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: no0b
chizow, did you get the raid card today?

Yep gonna log in a sec and put it in. Can't do the rest of my case mods b/c Xoxide sent a black rheobus and my Lian-Li is silver :|

Ugh. But at least I'll have benchies faster 😉

Chiz

 

[Technonut]

I would be interested in seeing some ATTO disk benchmarks for comparison. The results of my 2 7200RPM 40GB ATA133 Maxtors in RAID0 (Onboard Highpoint 374) are Here.

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: no0b
chizow, did you get the raid card today?

Yep gonna log in a sec and put it in. Can't do the rest of my case mods b/c Xoxide sent a black rheobus and my Lian-Li is silver :|

Ugh. But at least I'll have benchies faster 😉

Chiz

Well post your opinion asap, Thank you in advance.

So whats your new avatar a NINJA?

 

[chizow]

Yah, tech-ninja 🙂

Bad news though, looks like the 3ware line suffers from VERY poor write speeds. Now that I've benched, the speed difference is much more noticeable. Here's my results:

Block Size___Read___Write

128............. 13624.....45567
256............. 14463.....58283
512............. 16249.....81382
1024............21173.....71991

Running RAID 0 on a 3ware Escalade 7000-2 64KB stripe size. Read speeds are about where they should be, but the write speeds are very low. I get similar results in DiskBench for write speeds. DiskSpeed32 reports good scores though, but I think they are heavily weighted on read speeds, as my average speed is ~78mbps, high over 100mpbs, low 28mbps. Sisoft scores are ~62mbps.

I guess if you do a lot of reads and not much writes, this card will do the trick for you. Also, if multi-tasking you may not notice the difference, but anytime you are waiting for your drive to write, you'll be annoyed.

I think I may have to go for a Promise SX4000 or a HighPoint RocketRAID 133 now, even though its software. Since I'm not doing RAID 10, 0+1 or RAID 5, I'm not willing to spend over $200 for a hardRAID card.

Chiz