• 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.

which is faster (raptor vs. raid)

M

madman300

Senior member
Just wondering what you guys think would run faster

dual 250 GB Drives in Raid 0 with 8mb cache?
or 1 Raptor 74 gb drive?

mad
 
Originally posted by: tallman45
Transfering very large files - Raid 0

Loading OS - Single Raptor
Click to expand...

I would say that's:
Transfering very large files - Raid 0

Everything else - Raptor

Desktop + Raid 0 = wasted money
 
Click the "storage" tab at the top of the page, read the aritcle on Raptors in RAID0. It also includes a single Raptor and regular 7200 RPM drives for comparison.
 
Originally posted by: madman300

Originally posted by: tallman45

Desktop + Raid 0 = wasted money
Click to expand...


What does this mean?
Click to expand...
It means, with drives of the same type, the desktop performance of Raid 0 is the same as a single drive. Look here. You spend x2 money for no performance gain and twice the fault rate. To me, that sounds like wasted money.
 
If price to performance ratio is what you seek, Raid0 is a BIG! waste of money. As the increase in performance (currently) is minimal, as is well documented in AnandTechs article mentioned above.
That doesn't mean however that Raid0 is a bad thing!

I have to disagree with their recomendation of Raid1, I think this is a total waste. Why?
1. twice the price 1/2 the storage space
2. performance loss due to dual writes
2. its too easy to back up your critical files (work files, banking info,etc..)to DVD or a second harddrive
3. most decktop users don't have alot of critical data on their hardrives. You can always reload OS and
applications from disk.
4. the whole reliability issue is blown out of proportion, with quality harddrives the MTBF rates are in the
100,000+ hours range. for the average user at say 4 hours per day, that equates to about 1 failure
every 68 years. Raid0 every 34 years. If you left it on 24/7 in raid0 the avg is 5.7 years. I have had
7 home machines in 20 years and never lost a hard drive. I have lost 1 harddrive at continous use in
20 year work career.

Raid0 has value in that if you already have 2 hard drives and a mobo with onboard raid, you can get a small performance boost for 0$, and have the horsepower to spare in the odd chance you do transfer very large files or do video editing. This has become even more atractive with the newer mobos supporting raid for different size and type hardrives.

I also believe that upcoming 64bit operating systems and applications will considerably increase the I/O load on the SATA bus potentially increasing the performance advantage of Raid0.

Although with the current state of desktop technolgy Raid0 is kind of like driving a ferrari in city traffic, it shouldn't be looked at as a bad investment.


 
I guess the question wasnt about which I should buy.

currently I am running the 2 250s in raid zero, i use that drive for audio video storage and encoding. I am booting from a 160GB 8mb cache drive. I was just wondering if the perfomance of the 74 raptor would be simillar to my array. I would like to speed my system up a bit, but I dont know if a raptor upgrade is worth it.

Right now I am running dual athlon mp 2600s with 512 mb of ecc.

madison
 
You will see a small increase by going from a 160gb drive to a Raptor for your OS. Best bet if you do not do this already is just create a 10gb partition on the outer edge of teh 160gb drive and keep your OS there
 
Format the disk, the first partition you create will be closest to the outer edge, which benefits in 2 ways.

1) The larger outer edge spins faster than any other part of the disk
2) More data is stored per revolution, hence the read/write heads need to travel less to get to different files.
 
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
If price to performance ratio is what you seek, Raid0 is a BIG! waste of money. As the increase in performance (currently) is minimal, as is well documented in AnandTechs article mentioned above.
That doesn't mean however that Raid0 is a bad thing!

I have to disagree with their recomendation of Raid1, I think this is a total waste. Why?
1. twice the price 1/2 the storage space
2. performance loss due to dual writes
2. its too easy to back up your critical files (work files, banking info,etc..)to DVD or a second harddrive
3. most decktop users don't have alot of critical data on their hardrives. You can always reload OS and
applications from disk.
4. the whole reliability issue is blown out of proportion, with quality harddrives the MTBF rates are in the
100,000+ hours range. for the average user at say 4 hours per day, that equates to about 1 failure
every 68 years. Raid0 every 34 years. If you left it on 24/7 in raid0 the avg is 5.7 years. I have had
7 home machines in 20 years and never lost a hard drive. I have lost 1 harddrive at continous use in
20 year work career.

Raid0 has value in that if you already have 2 hard drives and a mobo with onboard raid, you can get a small performance boost for 0$, and have the horsepower to spare in the odd chance you do transfer very large files or do video editing. This has become even more atractive with the newer mobos supporting raid for different size and type hardrives.

I also believe that upcoming 64bit operating systems and applications will considerably increase the I/O load on the SATA bus potentially increasing the performance advantage of Raid0.

Although with the current state of desktop technolgy Raid0 is kind of like driving a ferrari in city traffic, it shouldn't be looked at as a bad investment.
Click to expand...

About #2, you're not completely right. First, it depends on the RAID setup; if there is no dedicated hardware RAID controller, then the entire system's performance can suffer with just about any type of RAID. Second, with a dedicated controller, RAID 1 does offer performance benefits. Writes happen at just about the same speed as a non-RAID setup (often significantly faster, though, if the controller has a lot of buffer memory), but large reads are often much faster, because half of the information for a file can be read from each disk. It all depends on the setup and the quality of the hardware.

I agree completely about point #4 (and the rest of them, actually). MTBF should be considered, and all valuable data should be backed up anyway! Also, home desktop/home workstation machines usually aren't stressed nearly as much as server drives, so the same drive will often last longer in a home machine.

The best type of RAID used today in server setups, for both speed and safety, is RAID 10 (mirroring with striping), and about its only failing is that, like raid 1, it reduces capacity by half. I've never seen a home machine advertised with RAID 10, and controllers for it are still pretty expensive. RAID 5 is often used on servers just because it gives better capacity, but it isn't nearly as good on performance.
 
Originally posted by: jvarszegi

The best type of RAID used today in server setups, for both speed and safety, is RAID 10 (mirroring with striping), and about its only failing is that, like raid 1, it reduces capacity by half. I've never seen a home machine advertised with RAID 10, and controllers for it are still pretty expensive. RAID 5 is often used on servers just because it gives better capacity, but it isn't nearly as good on performance.
Click to expand...

I've seen lots of desktop mobos with Raid 10, also called Raid 0 + 1. They're easy to find.
 
I just got a 75 gig raptor. WHen I install my OS, should I make a 10GB partition and install windows there??????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top