2TB in RAID 0? Not so fast.

[jitpublisher]

Right, but also with the sizes of the drives sprialing upward, backup becomes an issue. In all but a few cases, I would call it an unwarranted cost. Unless everything else in your computer is maxxed out, the money spent on a RAID0 array would yield much better results if spent on other components.

I agree with this. RAID 0 is a benefit performance wise, but for the vast majority of folks it is a very, very small benefit. It should be considered definetly as one of the last steps to fine tuning a system that already has the best of everything.
And, if you go RAID 0....backup, backup, backup!

 

[apache_lives]

RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

You've been warned.

pffftt been using it in 4 machines for years now, all still fine and gives that little extra boost.

you dont like raid thats your problem

 

[jwolf24601]

I think the problem with the RAID perfomance in this test is using the motherboard raid controller instead of a hard drive controller card...

 

[yakyb]

ive been using Raid 0 for 3 years now not lost a single peice of data.

i do a moderate amount of video encoding and move files around alot and my raid 0 is great for doing that. i do also game off it but havnt really noticed an improvement. when i make my next build (come on r600!!!!) ill run a few tests and see how it goes.

 

[cb62fcni]

Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.

 

[vic20]

Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.

And again, if you are not running a storage system that has large overhead (such as RAID 5 on a server), they may actually reduce performance. A hardware RAID card with a 100MHz dedicated CPU is slower running something like a RAID 0 stripe than an host based onboard with a fast CPU. They only improve performance in the server environment, not in workstation or enthusiast use.

This is exactly why the Killer NIC is a stupid idea. A NIC with its own, slow 400MHz chip and RAM would only benefit a server, not a gamer. Games need bandwidth, not low CPU usage and off-loading.

 

[joex444]

I can't resist, running RAID0 on 2 computers right now, been doing that since the Abit KT7-RAID days with the Athlon 900. RAID computers just feel faster, I don't think its really quantifiable in an easy manner.

I had a maxtor drive fail once in the RAID0 array, and obviously lost everything.

Then again, I had a maxtor drive fail all by itself and I lost everything.

What's the difference, exactly? Is it that statistically you're twice as exposed to losing everything? If you ran two seperate drives, would it be better to lose 1/2 of everything?

Take $200:

a) Buy a 150GB Raptor.

b) Buy 2 320GB Seagates. Run RAID0.

Results:

Raptor may boot faster, but RAID0 will have faster sustained reads. Raptor has lower access times, but RAID0 has 490GB more capacity. The RAID0 is twice as likely to fail as the single drive Seagate. The Raptor runs at 10,000RPM so is more likely to fail than a 7200RPM.

How would you feel about a RAID0 made from the Enterprise series of drives? They're designed for 24/7 RAID operation. The price is about the same, maybe 10% higher.

Oh, and you can actually save about 10% of that $200 with the RAID0.

 

[vic20]

I can't resist, running RAID0 on 2 computers right now, been doing that since the Abit KT7-RAID days with the Athlon 900. RAID computers just feel faster, I don't think its really quantifiable in an easy manner.

I had a maxtor drive fail once in the RAID0 array, and obviously lost everything.

Then again, I had a maxtor drive fail all by itself and I lost everything.

What's the difference, exactly? Is it that statistically you're twice as exposed to losing everything? If you ran two seperate drives, would it be better to lose 1/2 of everything?

Take $200:

a) Buy a 150GB Raptor.

b) Buy 2 320GB Seagates. Run RAID0.

Results:

Raptor may boot faster, but RAID0 will have faster sustained reads. Raptor has lower access times, but RAID0 has 490GB more capacity. The RAID0 is twice as likely to fail as the single drive Seagate. The Raptor runs at 10,000RPM so is more likely to fail than a 7200RPM.

How would you feel about a RAID0 made from the Enterprise series of drives? They're designed for 24/7 RAID operation. The price is about the same, maybe 10% higher.

Oh, and you can actually save about 10% of that $200 with the RAID0.

Yeah exactly. I spend a lot of timing trying to recover data from customer's drives, and they only have one.

With RAID 0 do you need to back up? Of course, but like you said, single drives fail every day too. You always need to backup as long as hard drives exist the way we know them today.

Hell we had a customer with a Solid State Drive fail, which runs the OS of his milling machine LOL.

 

[leo2kp]

I agree. I've been setting up RAID-0 PCs for 7 years and using my own RAID-0 arrays for 3 years and I love it. It's like dual-core (well, almost but not exactly). With dual-cores for single-threaded games you probably won't notice a difference, but the response time and offloading you get from another core just blows single-core processors out of the water even if the gaming benchies don't show it. In the computer world, milliseconds matter. They really do. You notice performance differences with just a 1% increase in any kind of speed, be it hard-drive, processor, RAM, or communications busses.

 

[smudgee]

why would you want that much hard drive space anyway? my school has 2tb on their main server for all the school computers. it takes the school the ENTIRE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS (8weeks in Aust.) to defrag!!! THATS INSANE!

1tb is only about 17 hours of uncompressed avi video.

with Hi Def ..1920*1080 1 frame=almost 6mb

6mb*25=150 mb per secound
150mb*60=9000mb a minute
9000mb*60=540 GIG per hour , for uncompressed Hidef avi

1 hour !
Now thats insane.
-------------------------
I degrag my 800 gig everyday , takes about 20 minutes with a good peace of software. Sure if I left a year and then done it , it might take 8 weeks.

 

[cb62fcni]

Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.

And again, if you are not running a storage system that has large overhead (such as RAID 5 on a server), they may actually reduce performance. A hardware RAID card with a 100MHz dedicated CPU is slower running something like a RAID 0 stripe than an host based onboard with a fast CPU. They only improve performance in the server environment, not in workstation or enthusiast use.

This is exactly why the Killer NIC is a stupid idea. A NIC with its own, slow 400MHz chip and RAM would only benefit a server, not a gamer. Games need bandwidth, not low CPU usage and off-loading.

It's funny that you mention that, considering that the Killer NIC has been shown to increase framerates and reduce ping times by a bigger percentage than RAID0 ever has. Of course, with its price, it's still a bad idea for the majority of people out there.

 

[vic20]

Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.

And again, if you are not running a storage system that has large overhead (such as RAID 5 on a server), they may actually reduce performance. A hardware RAID card with a 100MHz dedicated CPU is slower running something like a RAID 0 stripe than an host based onboard with a fast CPU. They only improve performance in the server environment, not in workstation or enthusiast use.

This is exactly why the Killer NIC is a stupid idea. A NIC with its own, slow 400MHz chip and RAM would only benefit a server, not a gamer. Games need bandwidth, not low CPU usage and off-loading.

It's funny that you mention that, considering that the Killer NIC has been shown to increase framerates and reduce ping times by a bigger percentage than RAID0 ever has. Of course, with its price, it's still a bad idea for the majority of people out there.

Riiiiiight...... I ordered an M1 Killer for a customer. After the going through a pile of defective ones I was very excited when I finally got one for him that actually worked. It did a lot of sweet F4CK ALL for his games. WoW might improve a few percent, big deal. Read a few more reviews on the Killer....

A good QoS router and a high bandwidth cable connection (you can buy up to 25Mbit in my city atm) make a much larger difference.

 

[cb62fcni]

Well, the point I was getting at is that ANY framerate increase is better than a faster load-time when it comes to playability. The Killer NIC is one of those weird pieces of gear that pop up now and then. You get the most benefit from it when you're using an old, slow, single-core setup, but if you have an old, slow, single-core setup, why the F#$K would you spend 300 bucks for a NIC? I personally think it's pretty sweet, but I sure as hell wouldn't pay much for one, if they drop below 100 I might pick one up to play around with, not to increase my framerates obviously. In fact, the Killer NIC is just like RAID 0 in many ways, it offers a tiny benefit for the great majority of users, is just fine if you have a pimped-to-D-max system, but otherwise isn't worth the cost.

If you're cutting corners on other components to put RAID 0 into your system, and you don't work on video or photo editing a lot, you're probably screwing yourself out of some performance. Period.

 

[Myke]

Hmm. Is Raid 0 Faster than only one drive? Yes! Sometimes by alot and sometimes by a little but it IS faster. Now lets do alittle math. Example: 2 X 500GB drive cost is approx. $140. One TB drive is $400. Hmm. Raid 0 is faster and cheaper. Now the downfall. You have a higher possibility of a drive failure. Well, we all are backing up our data, Right. Then who cares. I hope this clears the waters a little. Party on Garth!

 

[cb62fcni]

Actually, if you read about, 1 7K1000 is faster in all but heavy video-editing and such tasks than 2 500GB in RAID0. Also, you meant 2X500GB @ 140 ea.

 

[chunkymonster]

Those are impressive stats for such a large volume. I give it up to Hitachi for making such a tremendous drive and still have it perform like a drive (Raptor) 1/10th it's size. I could see snagging two or three of these for a RAID1 or RAID5 to store all my media, mp3's, and DVD collection. Just gonna have to wait until they drop in price. Reading this article makes me also look forward to solid state and hybrid drives. Good read...

RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

You've been warned.

If you've got to be an idiot to implement RAID0, then call me a complete and utter fv*king moron. Thanks for the warning. :roll: Multiple builds with multiple RAID0 arrays with nary a hiccup or data loss. It's a shame you gotta be like that.

yet with teh low price of HDs, and the facts that faster is still faster... RAID0 still has its place in the enthusiast PC... not to mention that they are still nonetheless, quite reliable...
I have 6 HDs in my PC.

I hear that! Deciding whether to go with RAID0 or not is a no brainer for most enthusiasts. Before you know it, there are 40GB, 80GB, and 120GB drives laying around after swaps and upgrades, so why not?! However, it still seems the general mindset is to have 1 large drive and partition it rather than multiple drives. Of course, it's easier for Dell to sell and advertise 1 - 320GB drive rather than 2 -80GB in RAID0 and a 250GB drive. Personally, I've been sold on RAID0 for a while and will continue with using them in future builds.

 

[petevsdrm]

Hmm. Is Raid 0 Faster than only one drive? Yes! Sometimes by alot and sometimes by a little but it IS faster. Now lets do alittle math. Example: 2 X 500GB drive cost is approx. $140. One TB drive is $400. Hmm. Raid 0 is faster and cheaper. Now the downfall. You have a higher possibility of a drive failure. Well, we all are backing up our data, Right. Then who cares. I hope this clears the waters a little. Party on Garth!

Party on Wayne! :lol:

There are myths on both sides of the fence about raid arrays.

Some insist it is more dangerous and expensive than it really is, I think these have been debunked thoroughly.

Some insist it provides MUCH more of a benefit than it really does, I believe these have been benchmarked often enough to be disproven as well.

I use 2 x 320gb seagate 7200.10 on ICH7R for my games drive, and 1 raptor (old 8mb cache flavor) for my os. I have used raid for years and never lost data, and it is faster, but not by a really significant margin. I picked up my drives because they were cheaper to get 2 drives for the amount of storage that I wanted, and I would get that small but noticeable boost in performance.

My $0.02000034008000004

 

[tomwaddle]

I'd rather run a Raid 0 and take the risk of a drive failure than to pay a chunk of change for one big hard drive.

The same argument can be made for single drives. Hard drive 'A' uses more platters than hard drive 'B' so therefore it has a higher risk of drive failure. That's just something we all deal with. There will always be some form of risk with whatever setup you decide to go with.

I don't consider myself as an extreme PC enthusiast but I did the RAID 0 on my setup because I did care about the minimal performance increases I'd see on my PC. That's why a lot of people do it. Hard drives are the slowest component in terms of bottlenecks - so if we can get some sort of an increase in hard drive performance, we do it.

I also agree that you shouldn't go with a Raid and go cheap on other things...