Raid 0 setup compared to sata HD

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: 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.

it will outperform if you are moving large files.....

 

[the Chase]

I guess its a budget/judgement call but what which HD (the 74GB for $150 or the 150GB for $300) would you guys recommend for a budget concious gamer with 2 PATA 120 GB drives already?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: the Chase
I guess its a budget/judgement call but what which HD (the 74GB for $150 or the 150GB for $300) would you guys recommend for a budget concious gamer with 2 PATA 120 GB drives already?

For a gamer, I think the money's better spent elsewhere -- Video, RAM, CPU, cooling + overclocking perhaps, etc. I think part of the "issue" is that games aren't really bottlenecked by the HD, and so spending large amounts on nicely HD-benchmarking drives/arrays don't give you the sorts of benefits you might hope for.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: the Chase
I guess its a budget/judgement call but what which HD (the 74GB for $150 or the 150GB for $300) would you guys recommend for a budget concious gamer with 2 PATA 120 GB drives already?

as madwand1 stated, put the $$$ somewhere else. sell your gto and get a 7800gt/x... for just gaming the difference is not worth it, not a good roi.

 

[the Chase]

Wow thanks for the replies! I'll take your advice. The new X1900 series and the upcoming 7900 series have been making my credit card tremble. Now I can splurge on the upper end models!!

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: 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.

You know, I was wondering about those missing test data of the RAID 0 on most of the testing done at THG & AT. Are they hiding something? I'm quite sure the answer is NO since advertising is the blood that keeps . . . Anyways, I sincerely believe we do injustice by comparing apples to oranges when we compare two ancient hdd in RAID 0 to a new generation 10kRPM hdd. The question should be "Does two 150GB Raptors, in RAID 0 (BTW not Rapters!) perform better than a single 150GB Raptor?", or maybe in this particular post, comparing 2 X 80 GB hdd's in RAID 0 with a single 80GB hdd. or two 300GB SATA in RAID 0 with a single 300 GB hdd. Then we know we are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I have yet to see such a comparison. Anybody?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: 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.

You know, I was wondering about those missing test data of the RAID 0 on most of the testing done at THG & AT. Are they hiding something? I'm quite sure the answer is NO since advertising is the blood that keeps . . . Anyways, I sincerely believe we do injustice by comparing apples to oranges when we compare two ancient hdd in RAID 0 to a new generation 10kRPM hdd. The question should be "Does two 150GB Raptors, in RAID 0 (BTW not Rapters!) perform better than a single 150GB Raptor?", or maybe in this particular post, comparing 2 X 80 GB hdd's in RAID 0 with a single 80GB hdd. or two 300GB SATA in RAID 0 with a single 300 GB hdd. Then we know we are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I have yet to see such a comparison. Anybody?

the answer is simple, the raid 0 stuff will have a higher str...but str doesn't help unles you move large files all the time to another hdd/raid array that can write as fast as the other one can read. if you have raid0(1) with a str of 130MB/s and you are moving 50GB worth of 2GB files to a regular hdd that can on only write at ~55MB/s then that is how fast the data transfer will take place, at ~55MB/s, but if you are moving to another setup like a raid0(2) that can handle the speed then the data transfer will take place at that speed - ~130MB/s. unfortunately most people don't move tons of large files.

and raid0 does't do sh!t for small files, it is only the large files that benefit. so there are instances that benefit from raid0 but not many on a desktop/power user machine unless they are doing video work where 1hr of non-compressed mini-dv avi video is ~13GB...