Raid 0 setup compared to sata HD

[KDu]

As of right now, i have 2 x 80 gig maxtor SATA drives 8mb cache on raid 0 with 2 partitions. One for my windows, and other for programs. etc.

I purchased another 300gb Seagate 7200.8 with 16mb cache yesterday and was wondering if I should port over windows to the new harddrive and just use my raid setup for aps and games (if it does improve loading time).

I went ahead and did a comparison benchmark between the two, so lemme know what you guys think.
Benchmark

 

[Bobthelost]

It'd be more interesting to see loading time, tbh. RAID0 will always have faster sustained read/write speeds, but if you're only loading a 20mb map file then it's rather irrelevant. I'm interested in the topic, and the folks at Storagereview seem to be of the opinion that RAID0 is a bad plan for gaming performance, and i tend to agree.

 

[Madwand1]

Many of the arguments against RAID are usage+benefit based. In this, nobody's better qualified to answer your question than you -- you can simply install the OS on the new drive (and perhaps apps, if desired), and compare the performance.

 

[the Chase]

Yeah let us know which is faster...I'm loading windows xp on a raid array right now on my 2 Seagate drives. I had previously had my games on one and windows on the other and did a few game load tests and windows boot times. I'm anxious to see if games load faster or not(slower?).

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Raid-0 with 2- to a few drives is so over rated and performance increase is negligible. GO serial or if you want to flirt with insanity a bit go with SCSI.

 

[KDu]

bump

 

[Jiggz]

I hate to disagree with the previous postings, although they are all in one way or another accurate when it comes to RAID 0. But I have been on RAID 0 for the last 4 years and so far everything is working fine. I tried using a 250 PATA hdd as a replacement for my 2 X 80 GB raid but I still miss short loading times and fast file transfers (large files). Sure they always say you double your chance of hdd failure. But if you do the math or law of possibility, it's basically the same since you only read and write half of the files into each of the hdd( since data is split into the number of hdd's). So basically each hdd gets only half the usage compare to a single hdd. Sure when it comes to wear and tear due to normal operation (since you have 2 hdd running vice 1), then I agree you double your chance.

 

[Bobthelost]

Jiggz: Few points, the hard drives don't get half the wear and tear, not by a long shot. Everytime you write to disc you're still spinning up both drives, moving both actuators etc. It won't save bearing damage at all, infact it'd be worse than two seperate discs as then you'd have one that isn't being used as heavily as the other. It would mean less writes to each disc's platter, but as far as i know moving parts are the bits that fail more than the platters themselves.

IF load times decresed then i'd be buying another Raptor to RAID my current one with, but at least half the benchmarks show that load times increase with RAID. Level times in particular. When the main advantage proponents of RAID cite is about as scientifically established as feeding the five thousand i'm going to remain sceptical.

But by all means convince me otherwise

 

[GamerExpress]

There are small speed benefits from a Raid0 in certain applications of it, but the risks in my opinion far outway the need to go that route. Personally I think Raid0 is a huge waste of time and valuble HDD space.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: GamerExpress
There are small speed benefits from a Raid0 in certain applications of it, but the risks in my opinion far outway the need to go that route. Personally I think Raid0 is a huge waste of time and valuble HDD space.

RAID0 Doesn't waste HD space.

 

[Myrandex]

Saying that Raod 0 is a huge waste of HDD space is pointless as you loose no space at all. I have been running a Raid 0 array ever since one of my first Athlon setup's and I love it, but whether you like it or hate it, you don't waste any space at all. I keep a current backup at all times, so if a hard drive fails all I have to deal with is replacing it under warrantee (or buying a new one if the hard drives last long enough to outlive their warrantee). I have felt I have noticed speedup in some things, and probably the biggest thing is when I am at LANs and stuff like that in UT2K4, the load times there are typically some of the fastest of the machines there. I'd love to through in two of the new 150GB Raptor's in a Raid array as my next setup.
Jason

 

[bob4432]

15-16ms seek times = :Q

are those drives defragged ever?

also when saving screen prints like those, use gif, they will look better and be smaller....

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Jiggz: Few points, the hard drives don't get half the wear and tear, not by a long shot. Everytime you write to disc you're still spinning up both drives, moving both actuators etc. It won't save bearing damage at all, infact it'd be worse than two seperate discs as then you'd have one that isn't being used as heavily as the other. It would mean less writes to each disc's platter, but as far as i know moving parts are the bits that fail more than the platters themselves.

IF load times decresed then i'd be buying another Raptor to RAID my current one with, but at least half the benchmarks show that load times increase with RAID. Level times in particular. When the main advantage proponents of RAID cite is about as scientifically established as feeding the five thousand i'm going to remain sceptical.

But by all means convince me otherwise

Bobthelost; Thanks for the enlightment. Just as I have mentioned in my post, I hate to disagree with all those who oppose RAID 0. Which basically means I did not post to convince anybody. Instead I post my experience with RAID 0. There is a misconception about RAID 0 in the sense that it will double the speed of writing and reading data. Although this is not entirely true by all means there is however somethings that will speed up. For example, the cache alone will double which means you have more data on cache. Another one is the total space available for the array. And the last one is the available data bandwidth. Not even the newest Raptor can match the available bandwidth of regular 7200 RPM hdd's in RAID 0 which also cost less. Others are also confused that the access time will increase. Well, just because you have two hdd that doesn't mean the access time will double. It will at least remain the same or on par with the hdd with the slowest access time. Think about series and parallel connections. Basically, in a RAID 0 cache and capacities are in series while the access time and wear and tear are in parallel.

 

[acole1]

RAPTOR-X FTW!!!! THG Benchmarks (notice the RAID0 seagate)

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Jiggz: Few points, the hard drives don't get half the wear and tear, not by a long shot. Everytime you write to disc you're still spinning up both drives, moving both actuators etc. It won't save bearing damage at all, infact it'd be worse than two seperate discs as then you'd have one that isn't being used as heavily as the other. It would mean less writes to each disc's platter, but as far as i know moving parts are the bits that fail more than the platters themselves.

IF load times decresed then i'd be buying another Raptor to RAID my current one with, but at least half the benchmarks show that load times increase with RAID. Level times in particular. When the main advantage proponents of RAID cite is about as scientifically established as feeding the five thousand i'm going to remain sceptical.

But by all means convince me otherwise

Bobthelost; Thanks for the enlightment. Just as I have mentioned in my post, I hate to disagree with all those who oppose RAID 0. Which basically means I did not post to convince anybody. Instead I post my experience with RAID 0. There is a misconception about RAID 0 in the sense that it will double the speed of writing and reading data. Although this is not entirely true by all means there is however somethings that will speed up. For example, the cache alone will double which means you have more data on cache. Another one is the total space available for the array. And the last one is the available data bandwidth. Not even the newest Raptor can match the available bandwidth of regular 7200 RPM hdd's in RAID 0 which also cost less. Others are also confused that the access time will increase. Well, just because you have two hdd that doesn't mean the access time will double. It will at least remain the same or on par with the hdd with the slowest access time. Think about series and parallel connections. Basically, in a RAID 0 cache and capacities are in series while the access time and wear and tear are in parallel.

the bandwidth will only be noticed if you are moving large files, not if you are moving small ones. and if you are referrring to me about the seek times comment, i am referring to the screen shot put up by the op which showed those times. i did not say they will double as i know they wouldn't.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
Bobthelost; Thanks for the enlightment. Just as I have mentioned in my post, I hate to disagree with all those who oppose RAID 0. Which basically means I did not post to convince anybody. Instead I post my experience with RAID 0. There is a misconception about RAID 0 in the sense that it will double the speed of writing and reading data. Although this is not entirely true by all means there is however somethings that will speed up. For example, the cache alone will double which means you have more data on cache. Another one is the total space available for the array. And the last one is the available data bandwidth. Not even the newest Raptor can match the available bandwidth of regular 7200 RPM hdd's in RAID 0 which also cost less. Others are also confused that the access time will increase. Well, just because you have two hdd that doesn't mean the access time will double. It will at least remain the same or on par with the hdd with the slowest access time. Think about series and parallel connections. Basically, in a RAID 0 cache and capacities are in series while the access time and wear and tear are in parallel.

No arguements at all. :thumbsup:

 

[EndGame]

A Rapter will eat raid 0 for lunch. I ran raid 0 for a couple years, then bought a new rapter when I built my last system...the rapter was noticably faster, more efficient, quieter and less of a risk. Many sites have now got reviews up which substanciate this. Just save time and money and go with a rapter.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: EndGame
A Rapter will eat raid 0 for lunch. I ran raid 0 for a couple years, then bought a new rapter when I built my last system...the rapter was noticably faster, more efficient, quieter and less of a risk. Many sites have now got reviews up which substanciate this. Just save time and money and go with a rapter.

because of the lower seek times.....for some reason a lot of people will disagree with me as i have had this debate numerous times, but the low seek times do make a very noticeable difference in how a machine responds with it being much quicker.

 

[the Chase]

Nice BF 2 ram usage article!! Good read and vey informative.

Edit- AT may do an article on this but any thoughts on if 2 74GB raptors will be faster in RAID 0 than the new 150GB raptor?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Nice BF 2 ram usage article!! Good read and vey informative.

Edit- AT may do an article on this but any thoughts on if 2 74GB raptors will be faster in RAID 0 than the new 150GB raptor?

thanks

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Edit- AT may do an article on this but any thoughts on if 2 74GB raptors will be faster in RAID 0 than the new 150GB raptor?

They aren't.

They are faster for large file transfers (but that's not common in gaming) but slower in every other way. The same goes for 4xRaptor74 btw.

There's a thread in the storage review forums where the same question got asked, the results were pretty definitive. Eugene got in on the conversation and that guy knows far too much.

 

[Madwand1]

There are lots of ways to configure drives and software, and lots of different needs. Most needs may well be modelled by the existing benchmarks, and perhaps the Raptor reviews (and associated sales links) are correct to a large extent.

But can you be sure that 1 150 GB Raptor is in fact faster than all possible configurations of 2 74 GB Raptors? There can be significant advantage in dedicating a spindle to an important part of the overall work. Same goes for 4 drives -- 4 splindles = lots of comfiguration and allocation options. Far too hard to have universal rules saying that 1 150 GB drive will "eat 4x 74 GB drives" or whatever.

 

[bob4432]

^^^

agreed, for the most part in home/power user/gaming enviornments raid 0 is only good for benchmarks...

since the 150GB raptor came out, hopefully the 74GB will come down a bit and then if it was ~$110-125 it would be a good deal for a app/os/game hdd with a second hdd for storage. i have been running the 2 hdd setup for about 3yrs and will never go back to a 1 hdd setup.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
There are lots of ways to configure drives and software, and lots of different needs. Most needs may well be modelled by the existing benchmarks, and perhaps the Raptor reviews (and associated sales links) are correct to a large extent.

But can you be sure that 1 150 GB Raptor is in fact faster than all possible configurations of 2 74 GB Raptors? There can be significant advantage in dedicating a spindle to an important part of the overall work. Same goes for 4 drives -- 4 splindles = lots of comfiguration and allocation options. Far too hard to have universal rules saying that 1 150 GB drive will "eat 4x 74 GB drives" or whatever.

All possible configurations? Nope, infact if you were to use three of them as JBOD then you might get better performance than the raptor 150 on it's own:

Boot disc
Game disc
Scratch disc

But no one asked about using 3 drives in the most efficent manner, they asked about RAID, where it's much simpler, where the RAID0 (and RAID1 i think) failed to impress compared to the single larger drive.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
But no one asked about using 3 drives in the most efficent manner, they asked about RAID, where it's much simpler, where the RAID0 (and RAID1 i think) failed to impress compared to the single larger drive.

On some specific test, with one specific RAID combination perhaps, and then as I recall, THG and AT both neglected to provide RAID0 performance for some of the tests.

With 4 drives, you could do RAID0 on two, and keep the others plain, or RAID0 on 3, etc. In many deployments, this will outperform a single big drive.