Thread Tools
Old Nov 24, 2004, 12:54 PM
Lightnin is offline
Find More Posts by Lightnin
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar

To raid or not to raid


I started this thread as on offshoot of a discussion that started in the hunting tragedy thread. The discussion was about raid being the fastest bestist etc. etc.

My question is that while raid is fast (I have used it) what about serial ATA. I built my first serial ATA system (the one I am on) and as far as I am concerned for game playing and general use I won't use anthing else. I'm running a P4 with a gig of ram (hyperthreading enabled) and a 150 gig serial ata and this thing screams. FWIW
Old Nov 24, 2004, 01:24 PM
Highflight is offline
Find More Posts by Highflight
Out of Time
I think it's apples vs. oranges because RAID means "Redundant Array of Independant Disks" and is used for systems that simply require fool proof redundancy for protection and security.
In short, a RAID system will use several absolutely identical but independant hard drives that are all updated on a real time basis.

An ATA Serial hard drive IS a lot faster than standard ATA, but I don't know what a RAID installation would have to do with system performance per se.

Highflight
Old Nov 24, 2004, 02:04 PM
Lightnin is offline
Find More Posts by Lightnin
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar
I assumed that everyone like me has heard "claims" of faster access and transfer rates with a raid configuration??
Old Nov 24, 2004, 02:13 PM
Andy W is offline
Find More Posts by Andy W
Registered User
Andy W's Avatar
Possible due to caching requirements with RAID controllers.
An awfully expensive way to boost performance.
..a
Old Nov 24, 2004, 02:21 PM
Lightnin is offline
Find More Posts by Lightnin
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar
Right I agree completely...wonder if we could test this out though
Old Nov 24, 2004, 02:30 PM
Lightnin is offline
Find More Posts by Lightnin
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar

FreshDiagnose


Here is a little benchmark from a free program I downloaded.
Old Nov 24, 2004, 02:57 PM
Andy W is offline
Find More Posts by Andy W
Registered User
Andy W's Avatar
Do you have a link? I can test my drives..
..a
Old Nov 24, 2004, 03:03 PM
Lightnin is offline
Find More Posts by Lightnin
Non-Discriminatory User
Lightnin's Avatar
Yep sorry meant to include, its kind of a pain you must register but it is free.

http://www.freshdiagnose.com/downfiles.html
Old Nov 24, 2004, 03:26 PM
Peter Khor is offline
Find More Posts by Peter Khor
Registered User
Peter Khor's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highflight
I think it's apples vs. oranges because RAID means "Redundant Array of Independant Disks" and is used for systems that simply require fool proof redundancy for protection and security.
Many would consider that RAID 0 or striping shouldn't be classified as RAID, as you actually reduce protection and security (loose one or more drives and you loose everything, no recovery possible).

Still, RAID 0 is what most users would encounter in their own personal systems as a way to increase performance. Keep in mind that there are varying types of RAID controllers, and you get what you pay for in general. With SATA drives you have SCSI advantages like command cueuing (Tagged Or Native for SATA) that help speed up throughtput.

I'd say hop over to Anandtech, Tom's HWG, StorageReview, etc and you'll get a earfull of opinions. (iirc MaximumPC did a shootout a couple of issues back and there was not much difference in a RAID 0 setup IN ACTUAL USE (ie, not just benchmark s/w).

If you need security, RAID 1 or 5 (or 1+0 if you wanna fork out one more drive) is an easy route. I'm certain that RAID 0 might have just the least bit of advantage in some applications, ESPECIALLY in a single user environment - but with a SATA (or even recent ATA) drive, as you've found, performance is pretty good.

fwiw I'm still sort of old school in that I use seperate physical drives which helps in performance imo - eg, 1st drive is partition to boot drive/apps and data/app drive, that way I can re-install easy. 2nd physical drive is for data, for eg when recording video the data gets dumped into 2nd drive. And finally a 3rd physical drive when encoding video files, extracting large compressed files (WinRAR) - that way system and app is running off drive #1, reading video file from #2, encoded and written to #3 - you don't have to worry about multiple read-writes (fwiw, there's some discussion wrt to some versions of BitTorrent (anyone using? ) CRASHING drives with continous read/writes). For the past couple of years I've left the data drive off my PC and put it on as a Network Attached Storage.
Old Nov 24, 2004, 05:00 PM
Awakened is offline
Find More Posts by Awakened
Nimble with Gimbals
RAID 0 does in fact provide faster sequential transfer rates that would benefit applications such as video editing but for everday use and gaming there is little to no quantifiable advantage. You're much better off with a single fast drive such as the Raptor.
Old Nov 24, 2004, 05:46 PM
Andy W is offline
Find More Posts by Andy W
Registered User
Andy W's Avatar
I do exactly what Peter does - C: is the original smaller drive for apps and OS (120GB I think), and then I have 160 and 200GB drives for data/video, etc. Now they have a 250GB unit for $129 @ Costco.. phew.. might need to upgrade again!
..a
Old Nov 24, 2004, 06:49 PM
freeflight is offline
Find More Posts by freeflight
no place like cloudbase
freeflight's Avatar
Awakened is right. Well pretty sure. There is a new HD (raptor model)out there that is a a serial ATA that runs at 10,000 rpm. I think this can perform in the same speeds as a RAID setup. On the hot dog gaming setups they are using these.
Old Nov 24, 2004, 07:34 PM
lakedude is offline
Find More Posts by lakedude
Pedal Power!
lakedude's Avatar
Yes but what if you raid the rapors? I've got a 10,000 rpm raptor but nothing beats a SCSI raid.

Raid 0 btw is when you write half you information to one drive while writing the other half (in a 2 drive raid) to the other. It takes about half the time so it is almost twice as fast. The more drives you use the less data each one is required to store so the faster the system can be. As Peter says this is less secure because if any one drive goes your data is lost. If you have an non-critical system you want as fast as can be than raid 0 is the way to go. You can raid SCSI, IDE or serial drives.

SCSI drives are up to 15,000 rpm.
Old Nov 24, 2004, 11:37 PM
Awakened is offline
Find More Posts by Awakened
Nimble with Gimbals
Anandtech's Opinion



Quote:
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
Old Nov 25, 2004, 12:55 AM
unbalanced prop is offline
Find More Posts by unbalanced prop
Registered User
unbalanced prop's Avatar
I must say on my system, The RAID almost doubles measureable performance of a single ATA drive. I have no experience with SATA yet.

Doug
Last edited by unbalanced prop; Nov 25, 2004 at 12:58 AM.


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
spinner or not dorysch1 Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 7 Sep 14, 2001 02:29 PM
Litestick-Glue in the chopsticks or not? mrebman Parkflyers 7 Jul 24, 2001 01:15 AM
gear drive or not? sms Parkflyers 4 Jul 12, 2001 03:11 PM
Speed 280BB - direct drive or not? Tyson Electric Plane Talk 9 Jun 04, 2001 07:12 AM
P-40 Warhawk FLY or NOT Cosmic Shane Parkflyers 0 May 17, 2001 01:54 AM