Raid 0 vs 2 separate HD.

[LeeTJ]

The final word on the subject: From Storagereview.com

Is RAID 0 Really Worth It? 04 February 2003

At any given point in time, all one needs to do is look at topic list in the SR Discussion Community to see a frenzy of enthusiasts pursuing increased drive performance through striping, or RAID 0. Many readers are pouring lots of money into such equipment and spending a great deal of time and effort configuring their arrays.
Details on RAID 0 may be found in this section of the SR Reference Guide. Suffice it to say that with two drives, when properly configured, RAID 0 will offer double capacity and sequential transfer rate offered by the standalone drive; but is it truly double the capacity and double the performance?

Capacity will indeed double. Bear in mind however, that data striped across two drives is much more vulnerable to loss as a physical failure of either drive results in loss of data on both. If capacity is the goal, it is better to run the two drives as distinct units.

What about performance? This, we suspect, is the primary reason why so many users doggedly pursue the RAID 0 "holy grail." Why they do, however, isn't clear.

Theory states that RAID 0 doubles transfer rates, but what do transfer rates really do for performance in contemporary desktop machines? As we've stated many times in the past, not much. STR simply does not significantly impact performance in typical desktop applications. There are certain cases, of course, such as editing of streaming data, where STR has a substantial impact. For other uses, however, its influence is insignificant.

So what's a "real world" speed increase? If we were to judge by the posts in the SR Community, everyone uses their RAID arrays for the sole purpose of running the deplorable ATTO PowerTools's benchmark. ATTO measures sequential transfer rates; it does not report anything remotely close to application-level performance.

Still interested in seeing what kind of benefits an inexpensive yet properly configured RAID 0 array delivers? While formal, ongoing RAID tests currently fall outside the existing purview of SR, consider an array that we constructed in our third-generation testbed using a Promise FastTrak SX2000 in conjunction with a pair of 200 GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 drives. We've run StorageReview.com's Desktop DriveMarks to demonstrate what kind of application-level increases one may expect. Those who are unfamiliar with and those who doubt the veracity of the Desktop DriveMarks are strongly advised to re-read our methodology article to put these results in proper perspective.

StorageReview.com 1x 200 GB DM+9 2x 200 GB DM+9 RAID 0
IPEAK Average Read Service Time 13.2 ms 13.3 ms
WinBench 99 Outer Zone Transfer Rate 55.3 MB/sec 109.4 MB/sec
Inner Zone Transfer Rate 31.6 MB/sec 63.1 MB/sec
SR Office DriveMark 2002 395 IO/sec 426 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2002 373 IO/sec 408 IO/sec
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 288 IO/sec 474 IO/sec
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002 519 IO/sec 529 IO/sec


Unsurprisingly, the dual-drive RAID 0 solution delivers double the sequential transfer rate of a single unit. The SR Office, High-End, and Gaming DriveMarks, however, all climb by less than 10%. Also consider the fact that the RAID array boasts double the capacity of the single drive: as a result, some of that performance increase we see between the single drive and the RAID array simply comes from the larger capacity and resultant shorter actuator travel distances. Is this worth twice the cost plus the cost of the controller?

A notable exception arises within the SR Bootup DriveMark 2002. Windows XP tracks the order of requests during the boot process and does its best to reorder data found on a drive to facilitate sequential reads as a system starts up. Since the Bootup DriveMark 2002 trace was captured from a system that had been restarted and defragmented many times, this individual test likely reflects the transfer rate advantage that one achieves through RAID 0. Therefore, if the primary purpose of one's machine is to start Windows XP, RAID 0 offers overwhelming performance benefits .

Again, RAID 0 does have its advantages in a handful of key applications and uses where data files are huge and/or data requests are highly sequential in nature. Data requests are not highly sequential, however, in typical desktop productivity and gaming usage patterns, the most often cited in "Help me build my RAID 0!" posts.

The point? Don't assume RAID 0 offers increased performance for all or even most applications... and don't assume that transfer rates reflect application-level performance.

 

[BoberFett]

And what's you're point? Did anybody ever claim that RAID 0 would signify the second coming?

RAID 0 can increase performance when straight drive throughput is the limiting factor. Video editing, loading games, etc.

BUT WAIT! I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT! LEETJ HAS LED ME FROM THE DARKNESS!

Tomorrow when I go back to work, I'm going to de-RAID all of our drive arrays at work. 14 drive RAID arrays? Who needs 'em? GONE! I'm going back to single drives because that's where the real performance is at.

 

[BoberFett]

You also failed to notice, apparently, that even though some of the margins were slim, the RAID array did beat the single drive. You originally asked what's with these forums and RAID 0? The morons (or so you would seem to think) on these forums tweak their machines by overclocking GPUs, video memory, CPUs, FSBs, memory timings, etc. ad nauseam sometimes just to increase their system speed by a couple percent. Setting up a RAID array is simply an extension of that tweaking.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
The final word on the subject: From Storagereview.com

Is RAID 0 Really Worth It? 04 February 2003

At any given point in time, all one needs to do is look at topic list in the SR Discussion Community to see a frenzy of enthusiasts pursuing increased drive performance through striping, or RAID 0. Many readers are pouring lots of money into such equipment and spending a great deal of time and effort configuring their arrays.
Details on RAID 0 may be found in this section of the SR Reference Guide. Suffice it to say that with two drives, when properly configured, RAID 0 will offer double capacity and sequential transfer rate offered by the standalone drive; but is it truly double the capacity and double the performance?

Capacity will indeed double. Bear in mind however, that data striped across two drives is much more vulnerable to loss as a physical failure of either drive results in loss of data on both. If capacity is the goal, it is better to run the two drives as distinct units.

What about performance? This, we suspect, is the primary reason why so many users doggedly pursue the RAID 0 "holy grail." Why they do, however, isn't clear.

Theory states that RAID 0 doubles transfer rates, but what do transfer rates really do for performance in contemporary desktop machines? As we've stated many times in the past, not much. STR simply does not significantly impact performance in typical desktop applications. There are certain cases, of course, such as editing of streaming data, where STR has a substantial impact. For other uses, however, its influence is insignificant.

So what's a "real world" speed increase? If we were to judge by the posts in the SR Community, everyone uses their RAID arrays for the sole purpose of running the deplorable ATTO PowerTools's benchmark. ATTO measures sequential transfer rates; it does not report anything remotely close to application-level performance.

Still interested in seeing what kind of benefits an inexpensive yet properly configured RAID 0 array delivers? While formal, ongoing RAID tests currently fall outside the existing purview of SR, consider an array that we constructed in our third-generation testbed using a Promise FastTrak SX2000 in conjunction with a pair of 200 GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 drives. We've run StorageReview.com's Desktop DriveMarks to demonstrate what kind of application-level increases one may expect. Those who are unfamiliar with and those who doubt the veracity of the Desktop DriveMarks are strongly advised to re-read our methodology article to put these results in proper perspective.

StorageReview.com 1x 200 GB DM+9 2x 200 GB DM+9 RAID 0
IPEAK Average Read Service Time 13.2 ms 13.3 ms
WinBench 99 Outer Zone Transfer Rate 55.3 MB/sec 109.4 MB/sec
Inner Zone Transfer Rate 31.6 MB/sec 63.1 MB/sec
SR Office DriveMark 2002 395 IO/sec 426 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2002 373 IO/sec 408 IO/sec
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 288 IO/sec 474 IO/sec
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002 519 IO/sec 529 IO/sec


Unsurprisingly, the dual-drive RAID 0 solution delivers double the sequential transfer rate of a single unit. The SR Office, High-End, and Gaming DriveMarks, however, all climb by less than 10%. Also consider the fact that the RAID array boasts double the capacity of the single drive: as a result, some of that performance increase we see between the single drive and the RAID array simply comes from the larger capacity and resultant shorter actuator travel distances. Is this worth twice the cost plus the cost of the controller?

A notable exception arises within the SR Bootup DriveMark 2002. Windows XP tracks the order of requests during the boot process and does its best to reorder data found on a drive to facilitate sequential reads as a system starts up. Since the Bootup DriveMark 2002 trace was captured from a system that had been restarted and defragmented many times, this individual test likely reflects the transfer rate advantage that one achieves through RAID 0. Therefore, if the primary purpose of one's machine is to start Windows XP, RAID 0 offers overwhelming performance benefits .

Again, RAID 0 does have its advantages in a handful of key applications and uses where data files are huge and/or data requests are highly sequential in nature. Data requests are not highly sequential, however, in typical desktop productivity and gaming usage patterns, the most often cited in "Help me build my RAID 0!" posts.

The point? Don't assume RAID 0 offers increased performance for all or even most applications... and don't assume that transfer rates reflect application-level performance.

Read it before, nothing different from what most RAID users already know.

Unsurprisingly, the dual-drive RAID 0 solution delivers double the sequential transfer rate of a single unit. The SR Office, High-End, and Gaming DriveMarks, however, all climb by less than 10%.

Depending on the applications, a 10% or even 8% boost is a substantial gain. Like the review pointed out, large files, boot-up/load times will benefit from RAID0.

StorageReview.com 1x 200 GB DM+9 2x 200 GB DM+9 RAID 0
IPEAK Average Read Service Time 13.2 ms 13.3 ms
WinBench 99 Outer Zone Transfer Rate 55.3 MB/sec 109.4 MB/sec
Inner Zone Transfer Rate 31.6 MB/sec 63.1 MB/sec
SR Office DriveMark 2002 395 IO/sec 426 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2002 373 IO/sec 408 IO/sec
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 288 IO/sec 474 IO/sec
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002 519 IO/sec 529 IO/sec

Well, the numbers are interisting, RAID0 seems to out perform a single drive in every bench, only read time and gaming are close, unlike the other test.

Again, RAID 0 does have its advantages in a handful of key applications and uses where data files are huge and/or data requests are highly sequential in nature.

And that's all we are saying.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES. 1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems. do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES. 1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems. do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Girls, girls stop all this fighting.


Let me try to settle it a bit.

LeeTJ you're thinking along the lines of having program files, operating system, pagefile and some other things on separate drives so the workload is spread. It's good idea for sure and yes, it would provide some performance benifits.

However, Boberfett is correct. Running a raid array does *almost* double the performance of the drives. There's a little bit of overhead but for all practical purposes it's about 190% of the speed of a single drive. The solution you propose LeeTJ really would come no where near the performance of a Raid 0 array.

X-Wing Fighter, hehe that is a pretty good one.

it doesnt sound to me like smilin believes that there is a marginal performance increase but a major one.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES.

Do you have any numbers that will back-up what you are saying? I have yet to see numbers that will suggest spanning increases performance over a single drive.

1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems.

That is what you would think, but in actuallity that is not always the case.

do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

You obviously do not understand the principles of RAID0. Spanning no matter how hard you try to convince yourself will not give you RAID0 performance, period! Spanning will not evenly divide the data across both drives, which is the simple function of RAID0. The only thing spanning acquires in accord to RAID0 is the increased chances that one of your drives may fail, which I wouldn?t consider a benefit.

I suggest you read this... Please!

 

[chizow]

Can't believe this thread is still going on. The differences in speed between 2 x RAID 0 and 2 x JBOD drives varies greatly. The RAID 0 array will outperform the individual drives by varying degrees depending on the application in all instances except for maybe simultaneous read/writes, where the 2 separate IDE drives would probably have the edge (reading from one and writing to the other). Again, if you have a speedy rig where you find the only time you are waiting on your CPU is when it is accessing its IDE devices, ANY benefit RAID 0, SCSI, whatever will provide a SIGNIFICANT improvement, as your system is only as fast as the weakest link when that link is the bottleneck.

I typically don't recommend RAID if people want to RAID for the hell of it, but if there is a specific application that would benefit from it and the cost of ownership isn't incrementally higher, why not go for it? If you have 1 x 80GB and want more space and have an onboard RAID controller, grab another 80GB and try RAID out. If you have 2 older disks, a 20GB and 30GB that aren't much good to you as you've purchased a new 200GB drive, why not purchase a $30 PCI RAID card and see if you can't breath new life into those two older disks instead of having them completely ignored in favor of your 200GB. Until you try it, you won't know for sure if it benefits YOU. If you don't think you'll benefit from RAID, then its probably not for you, but sitting here and saying it offers no benefit over JBOD is just ignorant.

Chiz

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES.

Do you have any numbers that will back-up what you are saying? I have yet to see numbers that will suggest spanning increases performance over a single drive.

1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems.

That is what you would think, but in actuallity that is not always the case.

do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

You obviously do not understand the principles of RAID0. Spanning no matter how hard you try to convince yourself will not give you RAID0 performance, period! Spanning will not evenly divide the data across both drives, which is the simple function of RAID0. The only thing spanning acquires in accord to RAID0 is the increased chances that one of your drives may fail, which I wouldn?t consider a benefit.

I suggest you read this... Please!

I NEVER said SPAN the drives. SPANNING DECREASES PERFORMANCE. I said used on HD for OS and other for Program files.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES.

Do you have any numbers that will back-up what you are saying? I have yet to see numbers that will suggest spanning increases performance over a single drive.

1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems.

That is what you would think, but in actuallity that is not always the case.

do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

You obviously do not understand the principles of RAID0. Spanning no matter how hard you try to convince yourself will not give you RAID0 performance, period! Spanning will not evenly divide the data across both drives, which is the simple function of RAID0. The only thing spanning acquires in accord to RAID0 is the increased chances that one of your drives may fail, which I wouldn?t consider a benefit.

I suggest you read this... Please!

I NEVER said SPAN the drives. SPANNING DECREASES PERFORMANCE. I said used on HD for OS and other for Program files.

What do you think spanning is?

EDIT: Uh? That doesn't make sense.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES.

Do you have any numbers that will back-up what you are saying? I have yet to see numbers that will suggest spanning increases performance over a single drive.

1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems.

That is what you would think, but in actuallity that is not always the case.

do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

You obviously do not understand the principles of RAID0. Spanning no matter how hard you try to convince yourself will not give you RAID0 performance, period! Spanning will not evenly divide the data across both drives, which is the simple function of RAID0. The only thing spanning acquires in accord to RAID0 is the increased chances that one of your drives may fail, which I wouldn?t consider a benefit.

I suggest you read this... Please!

I NEVER said SPAN the drives. SPANNING DECREASES PERFORMANCE. I said used on HD for OS and other for Program files.

What do you think spanning is?

Spanning is when you combine 2 or more HD to become 1 VOLUME. this is not the same as using 2 HD as 2 separate HD's. When you combine 2 or more HD's to become 1 VOLUME you significantly decrease performance and risk of loss of data. Using 2 HD's as 2 Separate volumes incurs NONE of the risk and does increase performance albeit not as much as raid 0.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I highly doubt you could manually load balance the data from both drives. And running a single program will generally load its files sequentially. And a game can't be split across drives.

Two separate drives is nowhere near the speed of a RAID setup.

NO Where near??

hmmm. from what i've seen the speed gain in general apps is relatively small, what mb 5% by going from 1 HD to raid 0? there is also a speed gain, tho much less by going from 1 HD to 2, so how can you say NO WHERE near?? that's like one of those graph bars where they make them REAL long to emphasis the difference but if you actually look at the numbers it becomes like 2% difference.

don't exaggerate. if you want to make your point just state it. this isn't marketing class. it's just a tech forum.

bobberfett

for your benefit let me requote myself.

my numbers were a bit off. but the idea still stands. you did blow it out of proportion. IS there a performance gain when using 2 HD (not in raid) over 1 HD?? YES.

Do you have any numbers that will back-up what you are saying? I have yet to see numbers that will suggest spanning increases performance over a single drive.

1 because increase in HD space always yields performance benefits in Windows systems.

That is what you would think, but in actuallity that is not always the case.

do you get SOME of the benefits of Raid 0 when using 2 HD (not in raid). YES, you have acknowledged that yourself. The differences ARE minor.

You obviously do not understand the principles of RAID0. Spanning no matter how hard you try to convince yourself will not give you RAID0 performance, period! Spanning will not evenly divide the data across both drives, which is the simple function of RAID0. The only thing spanning acquires in accord to RAID0 is the increased chances that one of your drives may fail, which I wouldn?t consider a benefit.

I suggest you read this... Please!

I NEVER said SPAN the drives. SPANNING DECREASES PERFORMANCE. I said used on HD for OS and other for Program files.

What do you think spanning is?

Spanning is when you combine 2 or more HD to become 1 VOLUME. this is not the same as using 2 HD as 2 separate HD's. When you combine 2 or more HD's to become 1 VOLUME you significantly decrease performance and risk of loss of data. Using 2 HD's as 2 Separate volumes incurs NONE of the risk and does increase performance albeit not as much as raid 0.

Yes, I know what spanning is.

If that is the case then eklass answered your questions 3 post down from your original post. .

I mentioned ?spanning? (a.k.a JBOD) afterwards because I thought that?s what you were actually talking about. I told myself there was no way you could be talking about two separate logical drives and continue to persist it will give you comparable RAID0 performance; so you must be talking about spanning.

Obviously I was wrong. But like I said eklass answered your question.

 

[LeeTJ]

Yes, I know what spanning is.

If that is the case then eklass answered your questions 3 post down from your original post. .

I mentioned ?spanning? (a.k.a JBOD) afterwards because I thought that?s what you were actually talking about. I told myself there was no way you could be talking about two separate logical drives and continue to persist it will give you comparable RAID0 performance; so you must be talking about spanning.

Obviously I was wrong. But like I said eklass answered your question.

actually

he didn't answer my question because as i stated, i would put the OS and DATA on one drive and C:\Program Files would BE the second hd. oh and just to clear up misunderstandings, this is NOT spanning, it is mounting the HD as a Folder/Directory as opposed to spanning which would create 1 volume out of two.

I use this particular format a lot because it makes backups and recoveries simple.

Backup System state (after installation of all programs and again whenever you install another program) and Backup C:\Program Files, Finally Backup Data (data will be backed up VERY frequently and System State and C:\Program files ONLY when you add or delete Software.

If one of the 2 HD's goes out, you only have to restore ONE of them. If HD w/ OS goes out, you restore System State, Restore Data and remount 2nd HD as C:\Program Files and since all registry entries remain intact no additional work is necessary. If you lose HD 2, then you just restore just restore C:\Program Files.

this allows me to use the Backup program that is provided by MS in the OS. Saves my clients money because i don't have to buy anything additional and IT does provide performance increase with minimal risk.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
actually

he didn't answer my question because as i stated, i would put the OS and DATA on one drive and C:\Program Files would BE the second hd. oh and just to clear up misunderstandings, this is NOT spanning, it is mounting the HD as a Folder/Directory as opposed to spanning which would create 1 volume out of two.

I use this particular format a lot because it makes backups and recoveries simple.

Backup System state (after installation of all programs and again whenever you install another program) and Backup C:\Program Files, Finally Backup Data (data will be backed up VERY frequently and System State and C:\Program files ONLY when you add or delete Software.

If one of the 2 HD's goes out, you only have to restore ONE of them. If HD w/ OS goes out, you restore System State, Restore Data and remount 2nd HD as C:\Program Files and since all registry entries remain intact no additional work is necessary. If you lose HD 2, then you just restore just restore C:\Program Files.

this allows me to use the Backup program that is provided by MS in the OS. Saves my clients money because i don't have to buy anything additional and IT does provide performance increase with minimal risk.

So basically, you have a poor man's RAID 1 array. Data from both drives is redundant, as you are backing up program files to the OS drive and OS system state to program files drive. The difference is that RAID 1 performs this function for you all the time and provides some performance benefit in terms of read times (with maybe a slight hit to write speeds). Each drive will fill up as the other one is filled, with the OS drive in risk of running out of space sooner (as a system state restore point does not take up nearly as much room as an entire OS). Plus, you gotta wait while your programs get backed up every time you install something. :disgust:

Regardless, I'm not sure where you are getting the increase in performance, unless as I mentioned earlier, both drives are in use simultaneously (reading from one and writing to the other at the same time). This doesn't seem likely as it seems you keep all of your programs and data files on one drive and your OS and backups of your programs/data on another. If you are executing a program from your program drive, performance will still be that of a single IDE drive; the other drive simply doesn't come into play. Unless I'm misunderstanding your implementation, you'd probably be better off with a RAID 1 setup.

Chiz

 

[BoberFett]

chizow

There's no way to reach this guy. He's obviously too intelligent and experienced for the likes of us.

Edited for spelling. I are to inteligent to.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
chizow

There's no way to reach this guy. He's obviously to intelligent and experienced for the likes of us.

Yah, I'm starting to get that impression, :disgust: but I'm just trying to debunk the mystery of how he thinks his implementation of JBOD is giving him a performance increase.

Chiz

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
actually

he didn't answer my question because as i stated, i would put the OS and DATA on one drive and C:\Program Files would BE the second hd. oh and just to clear up misunderstandings, this is NOT spanning, it is mounting the HD as a Folder/Directory as opposed to spanning which would create 1 volume out of two.

I use this particular format a lot because it makes backups and recoveries simple.

Backup System state (after installation of all programs and again whenever you install another program) and Backup C:\Program Files, Finally Backup Data (data will be backed up VERY frequently and System State and C:\Program files ONLY when you add or delete Software.

If one of the 2 HD's goes out, you only have to restore ONE of them. If HD w/ OS goes out, you restore System State, Restore Data and remount 2nd HD as C:\Program Files and since all registry entries remain intact no additional work is necessary. If you lose HD 2, then you just restore just restore C:\Program Files.

this allows me to use the Backup program that is provided by MS in the OS. Saves my clients money because i don't have to buy anything additional and IT does provide performance increase with minimal risk.

So basically, you have a poor man's RAID 1 array. Data from both drives is redundant, as you are backing up program files to the OS drive and OS system state to program files drive. The difference is that RAID 1 performs this function for you all the time and provides some performance benefit in terms of read times (with maybe a slight hit to write speeds). Each drive will fill up as the other one is filled, with the OS drive in risk of running out of space sooner (as a system state restore point does not take up nearly as much room as an entire OS). Plus, you gotta wait while your programs get backed up every time you install something. :disgust:

Regardless, I'm not sure where you are getting the increase in performance, unless as I mentioned earlier, both drives are in use simultaneously (reading from one and writing to the other at the same time). This doesn't seem likely as it seems you keep all of your programs and data files on one drive and your OS and backups of your programs/data on another. If you are executing a program from your program drive, performance will still be that of a single IDE drive; the other drive simply doesn't come into play. Unless I'm misunderstanding your implementation, you'd probably be better off with a RAID 1 setup.

Chiz

NO, i never said backup data to both drives. i would do backups to CD's or to Tape depending on size of backup. Data would reside solely on HD 1. HD 2 would be c:\Program Files ONLY.

 

[LeeTJ]

BTW

when i talk about backup, i'm assuming the same backup system no matter how you use your HD.

If you backup up a Raid 0, it will take longer to restore than if you back things up the way i have outlined.

obviously spanning 2 HD to become 1 volume is the worst possible choice as it provides all the risk of a Raid 0 with less performance that using Just plain old Harddrives.

Using 2 separate HD's as C: and D: are similar to what i'm suggesting, but i find it easier to not have to deal with a separate HD letter.

If you mount HD 2 as C:\Program Files and leave c:\documents and settings\ . . on C:\ Drive and backup as i've outlined you will see many of the benefits of Raid 0 (1 contiguous HD, some minor performance increases) with a decrease in risk. If you lose HD1 you won't lose everything on HD2. If you lose HD2 you won't lose everything on HD1.

i'm not sure why this is soo difficult for you to comprehend.

i've never said that Raid 0 doesn't yield ANY performances advantages, I've just maintained that those advantages aren't worth the risk.

look back, i quoted a figure of 5% ok, so that was low, but it was closer to the actual figure than that quoted by someone else of 180%.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

NO, i never said backup data to both drives. i would do backups to CD's or to Tape depending on size of backup. Data would reside solely on HD 1. HD 2 would be c:\Program Files ONLY.

OMG! I'm so confused now So, you backup BOTH your system AND your program files to tape and/or CD each time you install a program?!?!? That's nuckin futs! I like my way better If data resides solely on disk 1 (along with OS presumably), and program files alone on drive 2, why would you even backup drive 2 to begin with? I mean, yah it sux to have to install everything from disk again and reset your prefs, but backing up all that replaceable and non-unique data makes no sense to me. The time you spend backing stuff up to even slower forms of IDE media would far outweigh any benefits (which I'm still not clear about) from your set-up. The restore time in case of failure wouldn't be what I'd call speedy by any means either.

Chiz

 

[chizow]

If you mount HD 2 as C:\Program Files and leave c:\documents and settings\ . . on C:\ Drive and backup as i've outlined you will see many of the benefits of Raid 0 (1 contiguous HD, some minor performance increases) with a decrease in risk. If you lose HD1 you won't lose everything on HD2. If you lose HD2 you won't lose everything on HD1.

Actually, you don't gain any of the performance benefits of RAID 0 in your set-up, which I've stated many times. You only get increased performance when both drives are in use at the same time. If only 1 drive is in operation, it functions as any single IDE device would. That's why I figured you were backing up one drive to another, as I could see large file transfers between the two disk being beneficial.

I also figured that you backed one up to the other b/c w/out such a feature, you are still relying on a 3rd device to back up your data. If you only had those 2 drives (same as a RAID 0 array), you'd still lose your data permanently. Of course, losing the program files disk would be the less significant loss, but losing your data files disk w/out a backup system would be equally catastrophic as losing a RAID 0 array. Regardless, both methods are dependent on a backup system, but the difference is RAID 0 provides much greater performance advantages.

Chiz

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: chizow

If you mount HD 2 as C:\Program Files and leave c:\documents and settings\ . . on C:\ Drive and backup as i've outlined you will see many of the benefits of Raid 0 (1 contiguous HD, some minor performance increases) with a decrease in risk. If you lose HD1 you won't lose everything on HD2. If you lose HD2 you won't lose everything on HD1.

Actually, you don't gain any of the performance benefits of RAID 0 in your set-up, which I've stated many times. You only get increased performance when both drives are in use at the same time. If only 1 drive is in operation, it functions as any single IDE device would. That's why I figured you were backing up one drive to another, as I could see large file transfers between the two disk being beneficial.

I also figured that you backed one up to the other b/c w/out such a feature, you are still relying on a 3rd device to back up your data. If you only had those 2 drives (same as a RAID 0 array), you'd still lose your data permanently. Of course, losing the program files disk would be the less significant loss, but losing your data files disk w/out a backup system would be equally catastrophic as losing a RAID 0 array. Regardless, both methods are dependent on a backup system, but the difference is RAID 0 provides much greater performance advantages.

Chiz

and that's where we disagree. Raid 0 does not give MUCH greater performance advantage. read the article i posted.

 

[BoberFett]

That still doesn't explain how you intend to increase speed.

Data access when loading a program is sequential. Most programs load in a single thread. So the program will load from HDD2 and when it's done loading it'll load the file you want from HDD1. It's just flipping the loading from one drive to another. They will rarely be accessed simultaneously.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
That still doesn't explain how you intend to increase speed.

Data access when loading a program is sequential. Most programs load in a single thread. So the program will load from HDD2 and when it's done loading it'll load the file you want from HDD1. It's just flipping the loading from one drive to another. They will rarely be accessed simultaneously.

will it be faster than using 2 hd's as C: and D: ?? no.

will it be faster than using just the initial 1 HD?? yes.

will it be faster than raid 0?? NO

will it be faster than raid 5?? i don't know but it will definitely be cheaper.

 

[BoberFett]

and that's where we disagree. Raid 0 does not give MUCH greater performance advantage. read the article i posted.

It does give a performance advantage. When the bottleneck is the hard drives in a large sequential file access (as I've stated many many many times, loading games and large files such as graphics/video/audio processing).

Not when the hard drive is reading only small bits of data.

Your hard drive setup offers almost no performance in any situation.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
raid using SCSI drives.....

ah, this has shed new light on the subject. IDE raid is basically crap. i mean it helps a lot, yes, but compared to SCSI raid? pfft..