Will RAID 10 kill performance? (36gb raptors)

[karstenanderson]

k raid 10 was nice and fast. raid 1 is too slow for my taste, so i'm thinking of going raid 10 with 4 36gb raptors. --dont even suggest 74 gig drives, i already have 2 raptors and just need 2 more--

how is raid10 performance with 36gig raptors? can't find too many benchmarks on the net anywhere. thanks if you know personally!

karsten

 

[dowxp]

raid performance is all placebo. i bet under blind testing, you couldn't tell. "omg CSS loaded .01 seconds faster! I AM LEET"

"Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth." - Anandtech

want real performance? get scsi. atlas 10k3 on 29160 or tekram u3w ...

 

[redbeard1]

I just checked my old books, and they indicated that raid 10 is, at most, similar to raid 1 in performance. One of them said it is slower because of the double writes.

In server terms, Raid 10 can work better in some database enviroments than Raid 5. We have had to setup a handful of servers with Raid 10 to meet customers software demands.

 

[Pariah]

RAID 10, generally speaking, will perform like a RAID 0 with half the number of drives. ie, if you have a 4 drive RAID 10 it will perform like a 2 drive RAID 0 array. For home use, it is about the poorest bang for buck option you can choose. There are numerous cheaper upgrade paths that will net you better performance gains, including using your current drives as paper weights and buying a single 74GB Raptor.

 

[fire400]

If you have a lot of money to throw away, just get an SCSI card that supports the latest SCSI technology today and do a RAID 5 with 15K RPM drives, that will be noticable performance as far as you're concerned.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Are you looking for read or write speed increases?

 

[karstenanderson]

wow thanks for the replies guys, that was quick.. well i was thinking raid 10 initially becuase i figured it should be only marginally slower than raid-0 as far as i could figure. as far as someone saying raid0 was slow, they've obviously never actually used it 🙂 hehe. yeah if its actually just a tad slower than raid0 i'll probably go with it then. i dont care about bang for buck, cuz like i said already having 2 drives, i just need about a $120-$140 investment, getting 2 used drives on the forums here, and i need the redundancy that it will offer versus just a single 74gig raptor.. i'm looking mosly for read speed, fullmetal. mostly for application/OS drive loading.

thanks again..

 

[Some1ne]

If you have a large enough number of drives already to do a RAID-10 array, you might as well do a RAID-5 instead. It's more better.

 

[13Gigatons]

"Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth." - Anandtech

This is just not true, when video encoding or working with large files in photoshop having RAID 0 really helps. The problem with Anandtech's view is that he was basing it all on IO performance and not actual use that some one with a workstation would use. Try moving Gigs of data around and suddenly Read and Write speeds become very important.

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: dowxp
raid performance is all placebo. i bet under blind testing, you couldn't tell. "omg CSS loaded .01 seconds faster! I AM LEET"

"Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth." - Anandtech

want real performance? get scsi. atlas 10k3 on 29160 or tekram u3w ...

Couldn't have put it better myself.