New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which is faster?? - Page 3

post #21 of 43
The RAID 0 FTW.
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
Reply
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 43
wouldnt 2x 7200 rpm with the right drives short stroked on a good controller be faster in everything compared to a single raptor?

(which BTW I'll prob have 3x 300GB 10k rpm SAS drives and a controller up for sale after I do some testing with some SSDs I am getting in )
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by nintari View Post
wouldnt 2x 7200 rpm with the right drives short stroked on a good controller be faster in everything compared to a single raptor?

(which BTW I'll prob have 3x 300GB 10k rpm SAS drives and a controller up for sale after I do some testing with some SSDs I am getting in )
7200 drives will lose every time with regards to rotational delay against a 10k RPM device.
Simply putting drives in RAID does not decrease this value.
Waiting on X399
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II B57 @ X4 3.9 Gigabyte 790FXTA-UD5 Sapphire Radeon 290 8 GB G.Skill 2133 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
250 GB 840 EVO Noctua NH-D14 Windows 10 Logitech K350 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic x750 Corsair 600T Logitech G100s Razer Goliathus Speed 
Audio
Plantronics Gamecom 788 
  hide details  
Reply
Waiting on X399
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II B57 @ X4 3.9 Gigabyte 790FXTA-UD5 Sapphire Radeon 290 8 GB G.Skill 2133 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
250 GB 840 EVO Noctua NH-D14 Windows 10 Logitech K350 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic x750 Corsair 600T Logitech G100s Razer Goliathus Speed 
Audio
Plantronics Gamecom 788 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 43
SSD > 10,000 rpm HD > 7200 rpm RAID0 HD in most usage scenarios.

7200 rpm HD only help in large sequential reads/writes (a.k.a. useless benchmarks like HDTune and HDTach).

Access times is the biggest bottleneck in a hard drive. That is why SSD destroy 7200 rpm drives.

And RAID0 2 drives does double the chance of data loss. If you disagree with this fact, learn statistics and probability.
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riou View Post
And RAID0 2 drives does double the chance of data loss. If you disagree with this fact, learn statistics and probability.
I've never agreed with this sentiment, simply because I don't understand it. Surely since the drives are independent, the chance of array failure in RAID 0 is exactly equal to the chance of any single drive in the array failing?

How is this different from running a single drive and having that fail? The result is exactly the same (catastrophic data loss).

Additionally, since array failure is equal to the chance of any single drive failing, how do you determine the failure chance of any single drive, apart from taking the stance that any single drive will fail at some point in time?
Ryzen
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AB350M Gaming 3 Palit GT-430 Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 EVO AMD Wraith Spire Linux Mint 18.x Dell UltraSharp U2414H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Apple Basic Keyboard Thermaltake ToughPower 850W Lian-Li PC-A04B Logitech Trackman Wheel 
  hide details  
Reply
Ryzen
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AB350M Gaming 3 Palit GT-430 Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 EVO AMD Wraith Spire Linux Mint 18.x Dell UltraSharp U2414H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Apple Basic Keyboard Thermaltake ToughPower 850W Lian-Li PC-A04B Logitech Trackman Wheel 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by parityboy View Post
I've never agreed with this sentiment, simply because I don't understand it. Surely since the drives are independent, the chance of array failure in RAID 0 is exactly equal to the chance of any single drive in the array failing?

How is this different from running a single drive and having that fail? The result is exactly the same (catastrophic data loss).

Additionally, since array failure is equal to the chance of any single drive failing, how do you determine the failure chance of any single drive, apart from taking the stance that any single drive will fail at some point in time?
Duckie said it best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
No. It's not a myth... it simple statistics. HDDs still do fail today. The risk increase is near linear for each additional drive.

Correct. The probability of any individual drive failing is no greater. However, since the failure of any one HDD in array means failure of the entire array, the probability of the array failure is higher.

Please understand what MTBF actually represents. A MTBF absolutely does not mean the average useful life of the drive will be 22 years.

www.apcmedia.com/salestools/VAVR-5WGTSB_R0_EN.pdf

The risk of RAID failure is (assuming you are using the same drives):
P = 1 - (1-F)^n
where
P = probablity of array failure
F = single drive's failure rate
n = number of drives

If you had HDD with a 3.00% yearly failure rate, then the yearly failure rate of a 3xRAID0 would be 8.73%.
As you add more drives to a RAID0 array, the chance of an array failure increases almost linearly.
post #27 of 43
Quote:
How is this different from running a single drive and having that fail?
Because only 1/2 the data is on every drive in a RAID0 2 drive array.

This makes the chances of failure almost double.

How could you not understand that?
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 920 Asus P6T + LSI 9240-4i SATA6GB/s card Nvidia 8800GTS Patroit Viper 6GB of D3-1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB Benq 1655 W7 Ultimate x64 NEC MultiSync LCD2470WNX 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech diNovo cordless Corsair 650HX Lian Li A10-B Logitech MX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 920 Asus P6T + LSI 9240-4i SATA6GB/s card Nvidia 8800GTS Patroit Viper 6GB of D3-1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256GB Benq 1655 W7 Ultimate x64 NEC MultiSync LCD2470WNX 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech diNovo cordless Corsair 650HX Lian Li A10-B Logitech MX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 43
i'd go with the velociraptor, for most things its access time that counts, unless you are transferring massive files around, if your gaming its more about access time. above all is clearly an ssd, my raid 0 has 250mb/s average read but 13ms access time, so i still get stuttering in some open world games just because it takes a while for the drives to seek the data, no game will ever use the 250mb/s mid game, as its never going to need to load that much data, in one hit. and short stroking is a myth unfortunately, so long as your drive is defragged and optimized ie you use a program that specifically moves all data to the edge of the platter, your data is then always on the fastest outer part of the drive.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
q6600 B3 @ 3.2ghz asus pq5 deluxe msi gtx 460 cyclone 850/1700/4000 4 x 1gb 667 mhz ddr2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2 x samsung hd103sj 1tb RAID 0 7 home premium 64 bit dell E197FP OCZ stealthxstream 2 700W 
Case
antec 300 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
q6600 B3 @ 3.2ghz asus pq5 deluxe msi gtx 460 cyclone 850/1700/4000 4 x 1gb 667 mhz ddr2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2 x samsung hd103sj 1tb RAID 0 7 home premium 64 bit dell E197FP OCZ stealthxstream 2 700W 
Case
antec 300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Hippie View Post
Because only 1/2 the data is on every drive in a RAID0 2 drive array.

This makes the chances of failure almost double.

How could you not understand that?
The way you word it makes it sound as if you'd be more comfortable with all of your data on a single drive. Personally, I treat RAID 0 as if it is a single drive, and shape my data storage strategy around that.
Edited by parityboy - 1/18/11 at 10:30am
Ryzen
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AB350M Gaming 3 Palit GT-430 Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 EVO AMD Wraith Spire Linux Mint 18.x Dell UltraSharp U2414H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Apple Basic Keyboard Thermaltake ToughPower 850W Lian-Li PC-A04B Logitech Trackman Wheel 
  hide details  
Reply
Ryzen
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AB350M Gaming 3 Palit GT-430 Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 EVO AMD Wraith Spire Linux Mint 18.x Dell UltraSharp U2414H 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Apple Basic Keyboard Thermaltake ToughPower 850W Lian-Li PC-A04B Logitech Trackman Wheel 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by parityboy View Post
The way you word it makes it sound as if you'd be more comfortable with all of your data on a single drive. Personally, I treat RAID 0 as if it is a single drive, and shape my data storage strategy around that.
Effectively RAID0 is a single 'drive'. But as there is twice as much hardware involved, and a failure from any part means the 'drive' fails, this means a RAID0 array is (effectively) twice as likely to fail as a single drive.

Having a single drive is better than 2 in RAID0 from a data safety view, but is nowhere near as safe as having your 2 drives either backing each other up or in a mirrored array (which uses the same number of physical disks, and so is therefore comparable).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: RAID Controllers and Software