RAID 0,5, or 6 for gaming?

[bydomino]

Hey Guys I have a RAID 5 with 9 1TB drives on a DUAL XEON (2.4 ghz server) This is using the Areca ARC-1231ML 12 port SATA RAID Controller w/1GB ram
One drive is a hot spare. So I have 7TB of space.

I am consistently getting 740 - 790 MB/sec for both reads and writes. I have to tell you since I set this up I have just never see this speed in my home environment.

Just saying the RAID card make all the difference.

If I am RARing or unRARing large files files, this server, because of the HD speed can kick the crap out of my I7 using standard 7200 drives, even reading form on and writing to another.

Plus all my 7TB of data is redundant and safe.


Just my 2 cents.

Kevin

 

[cipher_nemo]

Hey Guys I have a RAID 5 with 9 1TB drives on a DUAL XEON (2.4 ghz server) This is using the Areca ARC-1231ML 12 port SATA RAID Controller w/1GB ram
One drive is a hot spare. So I have 7TB of space.

I am consistently getting 740 - 790 MB/sec for both reads and writes. I have to tell you since I set this up I have just never see this speed in my home environment.

Just saying the RAID card make all the difference.

Indeed! Arcea cards are among the best RAID controllers. And your 1GB of RAM cache on that card helps quite a bit for RAID 5.

 

[TheApprentice]

I'm necroing this thread since it's a high-ranking Google result and might mislead others researching RAID 5 vs. RAID 0 speeds for 3 or more drives.



This is close, but not completely true. Writing data on a RAID 5 is NOT "much slower" than RAID 0 if you take the RAID controller out of the equation. An integrated RAID controller (ie: Fake RAID or "HostRAID") that relies about the system's CPU for computations will have much slower writing than RAID 0. But a hardware-based RAID, such as a $200+ Areca, HighPoint, Adaptec, etc. card (look for cards with heatsinks on the RAID chip) will have have RAID 5 writes that approach RAID 0 write speeds. RAID 5 always takes more calculations, but for hardware-base RAID cards, this can be very close to RAID 0 speeds.

Most $200-something hardware-based RAID cards will take a minor write performance hit in RAID 5 when compared to RAID 0. Most $350+ hardware-based RAID cards with on-board cache (ie: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, etc.) will have near-RAID 0 write performance, if not identical performance. All of that is taking into account the subtracted parity drive which you sacrifice in the name of reliability if 1 drive fails.

Bottom line:

For built-in RAID controllers (ie: "fake RAID", ICH9, ICH10, etc., etc.), always run RAID 0 for performance, RAID 1 for redundancy, or RAID 01 or 10 for a mixture of both. Don't do RAID 5 (or even 3, 4, or 6) on built-in RAID controllers due to the severe performance hit.

For hardware-base RAID controllers try to do RAID 5 for 3 drives, RAID 5, 01, or 10 for 4+ drives. RAID 6 is fine for extra redundancy on uneven drive numbers of 6+, but I'd rather do RAID 5 for performance or RAID 01 or 10 for redundancy if you're doing 6+ drives.

What do you mean when you say "RAID 1 for redundancy" I'm new to all this and will be building my computer soon and I will be using 3 SATA 6.0Gb/s WD hard drives. The main use of the computer will be for gaming. The mobo SATA RAID is SATA 3Gb/s: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, & RAID 10 and SATA 6Gb/s: RAID 0, and RAID 1. I want speed, but also would like a fail safe.

TheApprentice

 

[aznshinobi]

There's no way for both speed AND fail safe. The only thing I can recommend is getting four of those WD drives you want. Put two in RAID 1 and two in RAID 0. Kind of just browsed through the forum convo so I don't exactly know all that's been discussed. But... RAID 1 with two drives will have the same space so if you had two 1tb, in raid 1 it'd just be 1gb. The RAID 1 just writes the data on both drives for extra fail safe. RAID 0 will have the drives split the data. So if you had two in RAID 0 the data would be split in half and the data size of two 1tb would double. So in essence you'd have 2tb of storage, and the data would be split between each drive so the speed is increased when reading and writing. But if one fails, you lose all the data.

 

[TheApprentice]

got to be a typo....... "RAID 1 with two drives will have the same space so if you had two 1tb, in raid 1 it'd just be 1gb. "...... I hope. 2-1tb in RAID 1 = 1tb of space. I got that. Put 2 in RAID 0....2-1tb in RAID 0 = 2tb of space. So does RAID 1 mirror the data that goes into RAID 0? What drive will the OS install on? Also the mobo that I have is set up as follows:
SATA 3Gb/s
8

SATA 6Gb/s
2 x SATA 6Gb/s

SATA RAID
SATA 3Gb/s: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, and RAID 10
SATA 6Gb/s: RAID 0, and RAID 1

So what is the best way to set them up. I have 3 1tb hard drives all 6.0Gbs/s and I guess I can get one more.

TheApprentice

Oh, thanks for your help too.

 

[aznshinobi]

If the drives are setup to run RAID 1, then both drivers will mirror the same file. Like if you installed TF2 on one drive, it'll install on the other, think of it as a back up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYBtmVMtH1g

Watch that video for more in depth RAID guide.

 

[TheApprentice]

Hey thanks for the link. After watching that I have a better understanding of RAID. Now I plan on using RAID 10. If I under stand this I will be able to use my on board RAID controller and I should get good speed with some security. I'm just going to have to buy that forth drive.

 

[jitpublisher]

Redundancy has little to do with data protection. The "redundancy" of an array like RAID 5 or 10 means the server or PC does not go down or fail, it can remain operational with the failed drive, that is what redundancy is all about, not data protection. In servers where they run 24/7 for years at a time, this a critical point and redundancy is utmost important.

A mirrored disk is just that. Anything that happens to your data on 1 drive also happens on other drive. RAID only offers some small protection from a failed drive. But in the real world, and especially desktop users, losing data in a RAID array is hardly ever caused by a drive failure, it is usually the direct result of the user doing something that breaks the array, and not understanding what they have done, and they end up ruining the array for good.
RAID is not a backup. Anyone who has used RAID for any amount of time will tell you that no matter what the array is, you had better have a good backup if you have data on it you don't want to lose.
Anything wrong with running RAID on your gaming machine, not at all. I have used it in the past, although I found the benefits over a couple of single fast, modern well managed drive's and a decent amount of RAM to be minimal. Just be sure you use a good backup program, and save all stuff offline somewhere if it is of value.

 

[jewie27]

2 SSD's in raid0, untouchable!!!!!!!!

TRIM is not supported in RAID mode

 

[aznshinobi]

Close this thread. It's been a year old.

 

[hayden1911]

Aaaaaand it's still up XDDD

 

[op117]

dont for get jbod vs sofwere raid 0,1,and 5 for windows little slower but better for data recovery after crash ext.

 

[aznshinobi]

Please stop reviving the topic.

 

[shaggygoblin]

Please stop reviving the topic.

Why stop reviving a topic that is valid, even after so long?
There have been many advances in Hardware/Software since this thread started, yet all the "Correct Information" stated here is of use to readers today, from 2 Drive gamers(RAID0) and Family Photo/Video Archives(RAID5/1+0) to the newest Home Media/File/NAS Server HDD setups.

To those who have contributed Valid and Helpful Info, TYVM and Cheers!

Please, don't EVER close this thread, let it get updated as H/W and S/W evolve to keep up with the times.

Please remember, drives can fail. Always keep a Backup of your digital keepsakes, be it Invoices/Receipts, Tax Returns, Photo/Video, emails... if you can't do without it, "back it up!" All good backup software, including the bare essentials Windows Backup, will Image your System drive, as well as Backup any additional data you tell it to.
I use EaseUS Todo Backup Free and have an image of my OS and Game/Data Drive.
Full backup/Image once a month.
Differential once a week.
Incremental once a day at log-off.
I keep two months of backups.
Sounds like a lot? Not really.
I have 3x 1TB HDD's in RAID0 and a 1.5 TB HDD dedicated to Backups.
On the RIAD0, I have 2 partitions: OS (C:\) and Gamez (D:\).
The OS Partition is 250GB of which 20% is used.
The Gamez is 500GB of which 30% is used.
The leftover space (~1TB Unallocated) is for future use/expansion.
My 1.5 TB Backups Drive is 10% full after 5 Months of regular scheduled backups.

Referring to my previous statement, Drives fail, and this backups drive is just as susceptible. However, as a backup drive, it gets used so infrequently compared to the RAID that I worry significantly less about loosing the info on my Backup drive AND my system (RAID0) at the same time. If I do, it will likely be due to Fire/Flood/Act of Nature. How do you avoid that? A "Crap Ton" of Backups of my Backups on either DVD/BluRay, NAS, or "Online Storage" often called "Cloud Storage".

However you do it. Be safe. Unless your a RAID0 Gamer, Be Dangerous, but keep a separate drive/location for backups.

 

[Kelxin]

The reason this thread needs to be closed is it is FULL of inaccurate information, such as people saying that 2 drives in a raid mirror are the same speed as a single drive. Half of the people in this thread don't even know which is which between a "RAID 0" and a "RAID 1".

The only reason why it would be necessary to do a RAID 0 is if you're really hurting for hard drive space THAT much and don't care about the data integrity at all.

Game smart ... Game on a mirror, it will save you headaches later and be just as fast as a striped raid.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey