• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is RAID worth it?

D

deveraux

Senior member
I was just wondering, which would give a better performance features, 2 120Gb SATA drives or using a RAID array with 2 120Gb UDMA 100 drives? SATA seems to give quite a boost to performance, but I quite like the other options available with a RAID array. Or is a RAID array a bit redundant for home use? I'm kinda new to HDDs, so forgive me if I'm asking rather silly questions.

Thanks
 
IMHO unless ya doin' a lot of video encodin'/editin' or runnin' a database RAID isn't worth it (neither the cost of setup or hassle of havin' to rebuild the array when a drive drops out on ya). :beer:
 
Well, nothing besides raid level 0 15k rpm scsi drives will beat raid level 0 10k rpm WD Raptor drives. But you never even told us what you use this computer for, so how are we to know whether any of this is something that's going to justify the expense?
 
In many cases, a single, high speed drive is more appropriate. If you run a very large database, or do huge transfers of data, then go RAID.

FWIW, if you OC the PCI bus, you can easily hold your own versus a non-overclocked RAID array.
 
Unless there is some major convience you achieve by raid, i dont see the point. Remember you double your point of failure, even if you get 0.001% better performance (which may not be the case anyway!).

Kristopher
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
In many cases, a single, high speed drive is more appropriate. If you run a very large database, or do huge transfers of data, then go RAID.

FWIW, if you OC the PCI bus, you can easily hold your own versus a non-overclocked RAID array.
Click to expand...

Why exactly would overclocking the PCI increase disk performance?
Unless you're already breaking the limits of the PCI bus that is, and if you need that kind of throughput you should get a proper mobo with 64 bit PCI slots anyway.

It can however cause severe data corruption, so advicing someone to overclock their PCI bus for the sake of better disk performance is a very Bad Thing.
 
Seek times stay the same, and Application performance increases by maybe 5% for the deak top.

So either A. You stream large amounts of Data from a App to the HDD (Media Encoding, Server based configs with many users requesting/sending data). And even some cases, Media Encoding would not be worth it.

Or B. Want windows to boot faster.

For double the price, if not more to back up the data from the higher risk of data corruption.

So I only see use for some RAID configs for either hi-end workstations or Servers. Not exactly for desktop. People should not glorify RAID, it's over rated for desk top users. And yes I know some of you have legitimate reasons, but I just couldn't help to laugh at some who thought RAID 0 would increase loading times for applications like games.
 
Raid is a must now a days. im sick of people thinking OH NOES YOU DONT NEED RAID UNLESS YOU DO VIDEO EDITING OR HANDLE TONS OF GIGS CONSTANTLY.. its all bullsh*t.

You'll notice a major improvement in speed with raid in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Like installing stuff, starting stuff, game loading, format speed, defraging speed, etc.

Remember harddrives are the slowest thing in a computer, so the faster they are the better.

Every modern motherboard comes with raid in some form of way, could be native to the southbridge, or a seperate controller [performance is minimal difference between the two btw] so it's not like you dont have the technology.

i will admit, raid is like dual channel memory, it kind of hampers future upgrades being as you have to buy two drives.. but it's extremely ideal for new setups.

Also, raid controllers of today are totally aimed for ease of use. It's an extremely easy process for most controllers... Go into the raid rom's menu, give the array a name, set the raid mode, set a striping size [for raid0 16kb is the best] then create.. then proceed to install whatever OS you need to..

With SATA being the norm too, the process is even easier to setup, being as you dont have to worry about drive channels.

I highly recommend it.

edit: for best price/performance/noise get Seagate SATA 7200.7 series drives. Any two of those drives in raid beats the pants off a raptor.

For about $160, you can get 160gb [80x2], higher performance, and a lot more space than a 74gb Raptor [$215] which is more expensive, noisier, and slower.
 
Originally posted by: syztem
Raid is a must now a days. im sick of people thinking OH NOES YOU DONT NEED RAID UNLESS YOU DO VIDEO EDITING OR HANDLE TONS OF GIGS CONSTANTLY.. its all bullsh*t.

You'll notice a major improvement in speed with raid in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Like installing stuff, starting stuff, game loading, format speed, defraging speed, etc.

Remember harddrives are the slowest thing in a computer, so the faster they are the better.

Every modern motherboard comes with raid in some form of way, could be native to the southbridge, or a seperate controller [performance is minimal difference between the two btw] so it's not like you dont have the technology.

i will admit, raid is like dual channel memory, it kind of hampers future upgrades being as you have to buy two drives.. but it's extremely ideal for new setups.

Also, raid controllers of today are totally aimed for ease of use. It's an extremely easy process for most controllers... Go into the raid rom's menu, give the array a name, set the raid mode, set a striping size [for raid0 16kb is the best] then create.. then proceed to install whatever OS you need to..

With SATA being the norm too, the process is even easier to setup, being as you dont have to worry about drive channels.

I highly recommend it.

edit: for best price/performance/noise get Seagate SATA 7200.7 series drives. Any two of those drives in raid beats the pants off a raptor.

For about $160, you can get 160gb [80x2], higher performance, and a lot more space than a 74gb Raptor [$215] which is more expensive, noisier, and slower.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah blah

 
Raid is a must now a days. im sick of people thinking OH NOES YOU DONT NEED RAID UNLESS YOU DO VIDEO EDITING OR HANDLE TONS OF GIGS CONSTANTLY.. its all bullsh*t.

You'll notice a major improvement in speed with raid in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Like installing stuff, starting stuff, game loading, format speed, defraging speed, etc.

Remember harddrives are the slowest thing in a computer, so the faster they are the better.

Every modern motherboard comes with raid in some form of way, could be native to the southbridge, or a seperate controller [performance is minimal difference between the two btw] so it's not like you dont have the technology.

i will admit, raid is like dual channel memory, it kind of hampers future upgrades being as you have to buy two drives.. but it's extremely ideal for new setups.

Also, raid controllers of today are totally aimed for ease of use. It's an extremely easy process for most controllers... Go into the raid rom's menu, give the array a name, set the raid mode, set a striping size [for raid0 16kb is the best] then create.. then proceed to install whatever OS you need to..

With SATA being the norm too, the process is even easier to setup, being as you dont have to worry about drive channels.

I highly recommend it.

edit: for best price/performance/noise get Seagate SATA 7200.7 series drives. Any two of those drives in raid beats the pants off a raptor.

For about $160, you can get 160gb [80x2], higher performance, and a lot more space than a 74gb Raptor [$215] which is more expensive, noisier, and slower.

uhm...no
 
Syztem, I agree with you that the hard drive is one of the slower components of a PC next to the optical drives. And the faster the better. Problem is, transfer rates of a hard disk means little for its performance.
 
Sunner.

I take it you are unaware that if you raise the FSB and the PCI bus, that you get more throughput and bandwidth available. You can also get faster access times.

You are repeating a myth told to frighten children. I have not been below 41.5 Mhz PCI bus for two years now. No corruption, no loss of data, no flames or smoke. Yes the PCI standard is 33.3 Mhz. Facts are that most any modern HDD can handle 40 Mhz without a hitch with proper airflow over it. I have run at over 50 Mhz PCI bus for extended periods trying to see this corruption that I keep hearing about. All I got was heat, and lots of it.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
Sunner.

I take it you are unaware that if you raise the FSB and the PCI bus, that you get more throughput and bandwidth available. You can also get faster access times.

You are repeating a myth told to frighten children. I have not been below 41.5 Mhz PCI bus for two years now. No corruption, no loss of data, no flames or smoke. Yes the PCI standard is 33.3 Mhz. Facts are that most any modern HDD can handle 40 Mhz without a hitch with proper airflow over it. I have run at over 50 Mhz PCI bus for extended periods trying to see this corruption that I keep hearing about. All I got was heat, and lots of it.
Click to expand...

And you are aware that not even a RAID-0 of the fastest P-ATA harddrives out there will saturate a PCI bus?
Granted, if you have a GigE card and some other stuff sharing that bus along with the HD's you could saturate it, but if you have a high end setup, you should get an i875 using the CSA bus anyways.
Or how about a board with PCI-X slots for that matter?

As for corruption, some people are lucky, some aren't, just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it has to many people, me included, at a "mere" 43 MHz.
 
I never said that corruption doesn't happen. It?s far less common than people realize though. For years I heard that 39 Mhz PCI bus was as high as you could safely go??.Rubbish. pure and simple. Been there, passed it and never looked back. Like any overclocked component, you need proper hardware, cooling and configuration.

The bus/busses CAN be saturated, but not maintained at that level for more than a moment. I see well over 133 Mb/s for peaks when FSB/PCI overclocked by a large amount. Sure, the maintained level is far lower than that, so you are mostly right that most never see the maximum bus throughput. You do get raised sustained throughput by raising the FSB/PCI buses though in virtually every case. In my case, the motherboard chipset is also limiting factor. A faster chipset than a KT266a/KT333 would likely see better numbers
 
All the negative posts are by users who have most likely never used raid before.

If a raptor is faster then a 7200rpm 8mb drive, and in every benchmark ever done proves raid [with two good performing drives] to be faster then a single Raptor. Then raid is faster then any single drive setup.

go figure?

edit: also with that logic, two raptors in a raid wouldnt offer any real world benefits?
 
Originally posted by: Boobers
NO!

syztem has more $$$ than brains...
Click to expand...

Actually that's only true about people who buy Raptors.

RAID would save you money in the case quoted.

Edit: Also, if you're in the market for a hard drive anyway I don't see why you wouldn't want RAID. The cost of two 80GB drives, for example, is only $30ish more than a 160GB drive, and syztem made a good point about RAID being available in some form or another on 99% of all recent motherboards.
 
For most uses, service times > STR.
And a RAID of two 7200 RPM drives wont stand a chance against a Raptor.

And yes, I've used RAID setups, as well as 10K and 15K RPM drives.

maluckey, I agree, it's not like the HD is a goner just cause you turn the computer on with the PCI set at 40+ MHz.
But if your data is important to you, why gamble with it for a rather doubtful reason, such as overclocking the PCI bus to enjoy a random burst at 140 MB/Sec instead of 120 once in a while.
 
Here make your own decision

Tom's hardware

I have used raid for over 5 Years and would never go back.

Also for those who said raid is no faster than a standard HD, You don't know SH#t about raid systems period.

Also I have one machine that has had raid on it for over 3 years (without format) and have never lost any data and the machine usually uploads/downloads over 30-45 gigs a month along with media encoding.

Why would anyone want to overclock the PCI bus. This is completely stupid unless your one of the kiddys who want 3Dmark scores also it also makes a unstable system after about 36-38Hz on most boards and kills the usb system.

Yes I build & Sale systems for a living and I have overclocked systems but it's not woth the problems it can cause and the parts it can ruin if you get too carried away.

I get tired of all the people who OC their systems and then thier parts go bad Do they take responcibility for their error........No!

They send them back to the manufactures and demand that the part was bad, even though they caused the problem to start with By ocing the system or removing heatsinks and improperly installing new ones.

If you want a fast system Pay for the correct chip and Use the correct parts/motherboards. If you want to OC, Hey that's fine but don't blame the manufacturer when it goes bad and don't tell others to do it. You may know the proper methods, but they may not and when they kill their system They will blame the manufacture for thier errors.



 
There is little performance gain on the desk top but a lot of security gains using level 1 and 5 RAIDs. Is it worth it?

"The main argument in favor of IDE RAID is its good price/ performance ratio. It allows you to achieve a substantial increase in PC system performance and data security for a reasonable cost. For example, a system with two 120 Gbyte hard disks (Maxtor 4G120J6) and our budget winner Dawicontrol DC-100 Raid would cost you just under $400. "

-Tomshardware


I would lose installed games and porn. All of which are backed up on a disc, thank you very much.

But for some of you who work at home and have very valuable data from work, then I would consider maybe a RAID 1 or 5 array. Other than that, I'm not going to waste 400 dollars on it. Performance gains only include 2x transfer rates which mean nothing for games or everyday applications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top