Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Overclocking since 1998
Joined
·
931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
RAID-0 will give you a 0-5% increase in performance in most applications and games. And it will decrease your reliability by 50% as well as cost you twice as much.

Some things you should know:
RAID-0 only increases the sequential performance of a hard drive. So it looks nice in the benchies but not so useful for anything but video editing. You're not doubling your performance with RAID-0, just the sequential transfer rate.
Hard drive performance is decided by a number of things: sequential transfer rate, average seek time, track-to-track seek time, cache size and how the format and cache are designed (server or desktop use).
The reason many people think RAID-0 feels faster compared to their old single drive setup are the following:
They replaced an old drive with 2 faster new drives. Just a single one of these more modern drives would be much faster.
The next reason is that they did a fresh install of windows. Windows always hauls arse when you just install it, but as you install software it slows down...

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bentrinh

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Facts are facts, but the truth can be deceiving. A raid system just feels better, the performance boost is what I’m talking about. But that’s just for some things, but I say every little boost helps, besides raid 0 is ideal for desktop, reason being cuz you'll never see it in a sever, but home data is expendable and where any enthusiast will say performance is what I want, then raid 0 is best, so what if I have to reinstall my OS when it fails, its been six months anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by teekeegod
Facts are facts, but the truth can be deceiving. A raid system just feels better, the performance boost is what I’m talking about. But that’s just for some things, but I say every little boost helps, besides raid 0 is ideal for desktop, reason being cuz you'll never see it in a sever, but home data is expendable and where any enthusiast will say performance is what I want, then raid 0 is best, so what if I have to reinstall my OS when it fails, its been six months anyways.
I would have to agree with you teekegod. I went from a nonRaid to a Raid 0 system. The comptuer feels much better. Applications load quicker. Games load quicker. I can encode and burn movies much faster. I think it was definately worth it. :withstupi
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I am with him to.

If the data is that important than keep it on a seperate backup. Plus, even if I had a failure I could reload the system in a matter of hours and I have (2) extra home systems, (3) work systems and labs at the College of Engineering at University of Missouri to fall back on. I am just having fun. I may be mistaken but RAID5 schould give good performance gains and reliability.

Here is a recent post of mine: Same drives before and after and average read write speeds increased dramaticlly with my benchmark tool. I am sold.

Just finished setting up my Raid 0 on the new system no overclocking (yet) on the two Raptor 10K 36 Gig
Before HD Tach Burst Speed 90-95 MB/s on either drive
Now (Drumroll Please)
After HD-Tach Burst Speed 200-206MB/s
The preformance gain on the system was well worth the effort.

Just my opion and I do appreciate the facts of the matter being posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,473 Posts
well thats with a hardware raid 0 i assume? what about an os stripe? no controller='s faster speeds. plus windows boot times with striping(raid 0) is nice too. and that article says AS LITTLE AS, meaning it can be much higher. plus the average pc users buy cheap ass dells. that article refers to the general public, we here are not the general public. we are a minority of computer users who are seperated by the gen public by varying skills and strengths.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,655 Posts
I like my Seagates in RAID 0... they're faster than a single Raptor!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
You guys realize that in those benchmarks you are using to show that your RAID0 array is faster than a single drive it's just writing a very large file (like 1GB) and telling you basically how long it took to write and read it. Seriously, how often do you read and write very large files like that in your applications?

If you are copying very large amounts of data all the time then RAID0 will have a benefit, but in applications it just doesn't change much because very large amounts of data aren't being used, even in games.

Look at the picture I attached please. I/O's per second are really what make a difference when you're using applications. You can see that RAID0 offers some benefit, but probably not for its cost.

Briank is right. You guys use Benchmarks as facts, well he is telling you facts about what determines the performance of a hard drive. It's much more than just transfer speeds.
LL
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,655 Posts
well I suppose it would depend on what size of a stripe you set your drive up as. if the stripe size is small enough you would still see a gain in games
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
You obviously have no idea what youre talking about.
Raid will increase HDD speeds 100%. Applications and everything load up much faster. Windows loads so much better, and games like bf2 become like loading cs 1.6.

I LOVE Raid 0.

Ps, where did you come up with this 0-5% figure?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,110 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by briank
RAID-0 will give you a 0-5% increase in performance in most applications and games. And it will decrease your reliability by 50% as well as cost you twice as much.

Some things you should know:
RAID-0 only increases the sequential performance of a hard drive. So it looks nice in the benchies but not so useful for anything but video editing. You're not doubling your performance with RAID-0, just the sequential transfer rate.
Hard drive performance is decided by a number of things: sequential transfer rate, average seek time, track-to-track seek time, cache size and how the format and cache are designed (server or desktop use).
The reason many people think RAID-0 feels faster compared to their old single drive setup are the following:
They replaced an old drive with 2 faster new drives. Just a single one of these more modern drives would be much faster.
The next reason is that they did a fresh install of windows. Windows always hauls arse when you just install it, but as you install software it slows down...

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101

Ummm..... Wrong
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,847 Posts
on paper RAID0 should wipe out any single drive setup. Even RAID0 with 2 drives should kick ass. Im gunna get RAID0. The figures seem to show that its worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
DID ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ THAT ARTICLE!?!
Please read the entire article and then explain how it's wrong. I would like to know what is right if this is not, just for the sake of knowledge. Not based on "feel".

From the article, all the data to back it up is in the pages prior to this quote:

"Final Words
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.

There are some exceptions, especially if you are running a particular application that itself benefits considerably from a striped array, and obviously, our comments do not apply to server-class IO of any sort. But for the vast majority of desktop users and gamers alike, save your money and stay away from RAID-0.

If you do insist on getting two drives, you are much better off putting them into a RAID-1 array to have a live backup of your data. The performance hit of RAID-1 is just as negligible as the performance gains of RAID-0, but the improvement in reliability is worthwhile...unless you're extremely unlucky and both of your drives die at the exact same time.

When Intel introduced ICH5, and now with ICH6, they effectively brought RAID to the mainstream, pushing many users finally to bite the bullet and buy two hard drives for "added performance". While we applaud Intel for bringing the technology to the mainstream, we'd caution users out there to think twice before buying two expensive Raptors or any other drive for performance reasons. Your system will most likely run just as fast with only one drive, but if you have the spare cash, a bit more reliability and peace of mind may be worth setting up a RAID-1 array.

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."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Im gonna have to go with the masses on this one as well. Just this last weekend I set up my raid0 array and the only difference between my old drive and the new drives are the old drive was 60 gig the new drives are 80 gig a piece speed and cache were all the same. It definately is an improvement. And anything you need to be that damn worried about being stored on your comp shouldn't be on it in the first place but thats just my opining. Until anandtech or anyone else builds my rig and shows me physically that there is no improvement then im going to go with what I see and what I see is the fact that it did and does imcrease my comps performance. They can build a supercomputer with 800 drives in raid and it means absolutely nothing to me or my rig.

"Your system will most likely run just as fast with only one drive, but if you have the spare cash, a bit more reliability and peace of mind may be worth setting up a RAID-1 array." Appearantly we are not the ones with the reading problem. Last time I checked Will most likely is not saying it will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by ICYUNVME

"Your system will most likely run just as fast with only one drive, but if you have the spare cash, a bit more reliability and peace of mind may be worth setting up a RAID-1 array." Appearantly we are not the ones with the reading problem. Last time I checked Will most likely is not saying no.

So because they said "most likely" the rest of their review is void?

And didn't you do a fresh install of windows with that new RAID setup? Have you ever done a fresh install of windows where it didn't "feel" faster?

Anyway, it's not my job to tell everyone how to spend their money. Just wanted to try and show that RAID-0 isn't what it's all talked up to be. But as long as it "feels" better then I guess it's worth it for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by klnospicy

humm... i just installed raid 0 with 2x250g and the boot time to take to boot into windows when from about 30sec to 15sec....
and it does load game faster than it use to

Just for reference, don't do any upgrades or anything for a couple of months and see how fast it gets into windows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Personally, I don't think RAID0 is worth it either. I decided on one 250GB HITACHI HDD, instead of this more popular "Two 80GB RAID0" preference. I even have a 160GB HDD I intend to hook up... As soon as I can free up an ATA slot... (Yes, it's older, no SATA for it.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I have 4 of the SATA2 WD-Caviar SE 120GB drives in a RAID 0 setup and for desktop use I don't think 128kb cluster size like they used in their test is one of the better choices for "general" performance. At least it wasn't for me. I found my controller had the best "general" performance with a 16k cluster size. And while there may not be a need for the extra performance (for you), it sure does help with response time when loading from disk.


In WoW I can enter a portal after most people and arrive on the other side before them.


Btw, comparing 2x 80Gb in a RAID to a single 250Gb drive isn't apples to apples. My drives have an uncached speed of about 58MB/s, where my 200GB Hitachi drive had a speed of 52MB/s uncached. Chances are the newer drive may perform a little better, but it's not a guarantee. Performance varies.. YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Bluecow003

So because they said "most likely" the rest of their review is void?

And didn't you do a fresh install of windows with that new RAID setup? Have you ever done a fresh install of windows where it didn't "feel" faster?

Anyway, it's not my job to tell everyone how to spend their money. Just wanted to try and show that RAID-0 isn't what it's all talked up to be. But as long as it "feels" better then I guess it's worth it for you.


Ive also done a multitude of installs on the single drive so I think I am more than qualified to say that in raid fresh install, old install, no install its just faster and yes because they didn't have the balls to say definitively that it doesn't does make it void. Think of this if they are gonna come that strong with that opinion don't you think that if they believed it they would have said yes a single drive is always faster.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top