raid 0 game loading times

[choirbass]

...again... ...the reason for this thread... was originally intended to be limited to raid 0 loading times for games... ...not raid 0 for any other purpose... raid 0 has other purposes (such as in video editing), but, a seperate thread should be made for that then, expressing its benefits, and there are quite a few threads about that... ...there is too much fallacy thats gone around, for quite awhile... of people claiming that raid 0 is the way to go when it comes to gaming... when there is nothing concrete to back that up, 'strictly assumption' at best.


example 1...

on a single drive, it takes 10 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it can also take 10 seconds to load a noncompressed 100MB level in a game... no problems, perfectly expected

in a 2 drive raid 0 array, it takes 5 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it can also take 5 seconds to load a noncompressed 100MB level in a game... no problems, perfectly expected.

example 2...

on a single drive, it takes 10 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... thats expected, because the data is compressed, and has to be decompressed before it can be used

in a 2 drive raid 0 array, it takes 5 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... ...having raid 0 does not speed up your cpu at all, your cpu still takes the same amount of time to process and decompress the data so it can be used...


...theyre just simple examples... ...but this is the whole point thats trying to be made... ...when you load a compressed 100MB game level, its certainly not just going to take the same 5 or 10 seconds that it took to copy a 100MB file, from A to B... ...theres certainly more thats having to be done, than just simply read/write a file to/from a hdd... and a lot of that is dependant on the processing capability of your cpu, that usually ends up being the bottleneck when it comes to slow game loading times.

 

[SuperFly03]

Side note: Before I begin, it would be helpful if you learned to use the quote tag, this has nothing to do with your post except making it easier to read. Take it as a helpful tip for future reference.

So what, sure I paid 3600CDN for my whole setup but that was my choice. It's like someone buying a 17" monitor, vs a 20" monitor, do you really need it? No, but does it help in the long run by being that much better? Yes.

I'm not trying to say your right, or that i'm right, i'm not trying to argue with you. Just saying I made a choice to not use slower components, because "I" can notice a difference in computer speeds. I'm very sensitive to those things because i've used computers since I was 7-8.

I know you aren't trying to argue. You are right, spending that much money is a choice left ultimately up to the customer and I will never argue someones personal choice. I only deal with the information, once you have it what you do with it is your choice, make no mistake about that.

I've been using computer since I could since in my dad's lap. Ok, I was using a Mac, but this was back in the mid 80's.

My system boots up normally like any other one with or without RAID. In fact by the time Windows desktop screen appears I can start using everything on my desktop, can you say the same thing? I like that and i'm used to it. If you don't notice a difference, well thats just you.

Actually, yes I can. I have my computer very well configured, nothing boots up that isn't absolutely necessary, so on boot I only have 3 or 4 programs actually booting. The only thing I have to wait on is my network card obtaining an IP from my router's DHCP server, not too shabby.

My system I had RDRAM PC 1066- 32bit (single 512MB stick, don't tell me I had to have two sticks, because my system used A SINGLE stick, it was 32bit, thats why I could use 1 stick, with 1 continuity module on the other slot) where as the AXP 3000+ had DDR 333Mhz. I know of course the RDRAM had much more bandwidth BUT, the Athlon system had a dedicated controller onboard, which made communicating with the DDR ram MUCH FASTER. My RDRAM, although it had a lot of B/W, it's latency WAS HUGE. I just wanted to point out that even though my system was Hyper Threaded...it was a proven fact that it was only GOOD with Encoding and media files....VS the Athlon's awesome gaming performance due to it's short latency with the RAM, and somewhat efficient architecture.

I am going to side step that because honestly, I don't know jack about RDRAM. All I know is it was too expensive and didn't compare well against DDR RAM which is why Intel dropped it after their licensing agreements was up with RAMBUS.

I wanted to point out that my P4 3.06 was the FIRST Hyper threaded one, and it worked...but it was more of a performance disadvantage then a good one (except for media files of course). The next update of the P4 (3.0GHZ/800mhz FSB) was superior to my original P4 3.06/533mhz FSB system. I also wanted to mention I tried overclocking it the first time I got my system 3 years ago (the P4) and it didn't overclock so well, because it was a NorthWood, and it was one of the newer HT ones (not as good of a process as the Prescott).

Yeah, Northwood's generally don't overclock well. The main problem, as I recall, was the motherboards vCore dropping under load which caused instability and to counter that you had to solder on a resistor to the inside of the 478 socket. I had a P4C 3.0 myself. err.... still have it but it doesn't do much but sit there now.

These supposed "Uber Geeks" that love to pontificate about the dangers/uselessness of RAID0 all seem to base their points on the premise that we all only have one system.

Well of course. It is faulty to assume that most people have multiple computers. There is always a way to mitigate the dangers of technologies such as RAID, but if we always assume that then people with only 2 hard drives and no backup, or only 1 system, get lulled into a false sense of security. Not everybody who reads these forums for information posts, so one must be very precise in order to prevent confusion.

 

[SuperFly03]

I agree.

Use your fancy search button[other people]... this argument has gone on forever and there are at least a dozen good threads to read on it.

For all you lazy people: Here

Not you choirbass

 

[choirbass]

lol, okay

 

[yourmothersanastronaut]

I'm happy with my single 74GB Raptor.

If you think about it, as many people on here claim they have uber-leet RAID setups, they still make up a small percentage of gamers.

Most gamers are the casual kind who buy the average $1500 Dell machines with maybe a midrange non-C2D CPU and a single hard drive, most likely IDE as opposed to SATA. So, even a current SATA drive and an AMD64 X2 is an improvement over what the majority of players have.

So if someone feels the need to extend that lead with a multi-Raptor RAID setup, whether for work or for pleasure, go right ahead. If you've got the money to burn, fire away.

I probably wouldn't use RAID 0 because my life is on my machine, I have schoolwork. Gaming takes up enough of my study time, I can't afford to take the risk (however small or large) of having a drive fail, then spending the time to reinstall everything. How much time would be wasted then?

It's easy to get DiskSnapshot and a BartPE builder as a free way to re-image a hard drive. I doubt it works on RAID arrays because when I did have to re-image the drive due to a bootloader failure, I didn't see an option for LVM or RAID re-imaging.

 

[choirbass]

yeah, theres no problem with wanting to improve your machine with raid 0, if youve got the time, money, arent at risk of permanently losing data, and knowing it may only provide a very small improvement over what you already have in some cases, just all that... ...its just when people go spreading misinformation, about what it actually can do... and then someone invests money in that misinformation having believed it, when they could have invested it better elsewhere... but, as long as people are aware of the pros and cons to having it, and not misinformation, its okay then

 

[Chainzsaw]

Ok let's agree to disagree...no matter how ****** up your view may be lol!

JK I remember seeing that somewhere, just felt like putting that in.

Anyways. I like my RAID 0 set up. Games load very quickly, and doing searches on my RAID 0 is great. Not to mention defragging my hd, and to a lesser extent virus scans.

Thanks for all the replies though, it was interesting to see what you guys thought.

I've done enough reading, I already know lots, so I don't need to see more threads . I do work as an Informatics technician for the government, after all (desktop repairs, mainly, so I know a thing or two ;-).

P.S.: I did have the money to burn, I bought my current system of August of this year, and the last system I got was back in January of 2003. 3 years of using the same system...I had enough of the Socket 478 Northwood and my non-upgradeable RDRAM (which I couldn't find, even if I could it cost 1$ a megabyte....OUCH)! Not to mention a total of 240 GB across 3 80GB HD's was not enough for games, movies, and pictures. So i've been putting money away to buy a good system for myself that will be upgradeable.

At least I bought something useful....instead of something like the KILLER NIC- LAWL!

This was my birthday present to myself when I built it in August. Of course I will splurge every once in a while, so sue me!

H
A
N
D

 

[SuperFly03]

At least I bought something useful....instead of something like the KILLER NIC- LAWL!

This was my birthday present to myself when I built it in August. Of course I will splurge every once in a while, so sue me!

H
A
N
D

I shall sue you for your system

 

[killmess]

1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed[/b] at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:

Wait, so I need 4gb of ram to play oblivion? Maybe that's why it brings everyone's computers to a screeching halt! And I can't use more than 2 drives in raid-0? Well damn! I guess all those people with 4 raptors in raid-0 must be idiots!/sarcasm

Most of the data is compressed to save space, and thus requires time for your cpu to uncompress it and store it in ram. Close that mouth

I think it's not compressed, because 4GB it's the disk size. 8O

 

[killmess]

All the data points to CPU's bottlenecking load times in games (which I agree with based on my experience), and I don't do huge file transfers, nor do I page during games, I don't do video editing, so I really have no use for RAID 0.

I think I have readed somewhere that all Windows load to ram also is written to disk(pagefile) for security.
Someone knows something about this. :?: :? :?:

 

[killmess]

example 2...

on a single drive, it takes 10 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... thats expected, because the data is compressed, and has to be decompressed before it can be used

in a 2 drive raid 0 array, it takes 5 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... ...having raid 0 does not speed up your cpu at all, your cpu still takes the same amount of time to process and decompress the data so it can be used...


...theyre just simple examples... ...but this is the whole point thats trying to be made... ...when you load a compressed 100MB game level, its certainly not just going to take the same 5 or 10 seconds that it took to copy a 100MB file, from A to B... ...theres certainly more thats having to be done, than just simply read/write a file to/from a hdd... and a lot of that is dependant on the processing capability of your cpu, that usually ends up being the bottleneck when it comes to slow game loading times.

As you have said, if it takes 25 secs instead 5 secs to load a compressed file it's because your cpu it's too slow. But the 100mb file still have to be loaded to ram to be decompressed. So 5 secs to load, 20 to decompress. 8) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[SuperFly03]

1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed[/b] at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:

Wait, so I need 4gb of ram to play oblivion? Maybe that's why it brings everyone's computers to a screeching halt! And I can't use more than 2 drives in raid-0? Well damn! I guess all those people with 4 raptors in raid-0 must be idiots!/sarcasm

Most of the data is compressed to save space, and thus requires time for your cpu to uncompress it and store it in ram. Close that mouth

I think it's not compressed, because 4GB it's the disk size. 8O

The data is still compressed on the hard drive, if it weren't I would expect games to be double the size they are now. If the data were not compressed then by definition shouldn't it go straight from the HDD to the RAM? If that is true, shouldn't loading take the exact time that it takes to transfer the data from the HDD to the RAM. Therefore, if we were to load a 1GB level, it should take (1024MB/50MB/s (avg read on most 7200rpm disks) which is about ~20 seconds and then under RAID 0 it should only take ~10 seconds.... hmmm I don't think so. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite it.

 

[russki]

First of all, good post.

Second of all, this thread is another reminder to the rational people why it is pointless to try and use common sense and empirically supported arguments (at least on these forums, or most forums in general) to try to convince most home users they don't need RAID 0.

I have posted on the subject time and time again only to be told that "and I saw a great improvement once I upgraded my system and went to RAID 0." I think the marketing hype really does drive most "enthusiasts."

Sidenote: for all you who want to make comparisons, please do it this way: run a system with a single drive, then run the same system with two identical drives, both of which are identical to the drive in the first run. That should be the only basis for the comparison, as it will keep all other things equal.

The conclusion is simple, and it's been laid out for you time and time again: most home users, including "enthusiasts," do not benefit from a RAID 0 setup enough to justify the increased cost and greatly reduced reliability (1/n that of a single drive set-up, where n is the number of drives in the array. And yeah, n can be more than 2 for the ill informed).
Unless, you do a lot of tasks that require sequential transfers of large quantities of data, such as media editing, serving, etc.

Somehow, though, people can not read the paragraph above completely, and all these posts are fruitless. Sorry, I am quite cynical on this point by now. But I support you in your fight for better informed masses.

 

[killmess]

Actually I use a crappy little program called Super DVD Ripper (anyone know of a better DVD ripper?)

Maybe DVD Decrypter?

Second that. 8)

 

[Chainzsaw]

First of all, good post.

Second of all, this thread is another reminder to the rational people why it is pointless to try and use common sense and empirically supported arguments (at least on these forums, or most forums in general) to try to convince most home users they don't need RAID 0.

I have posted on the subject time and time again only to be told that "and I saw a great improvement once I upgraded my system and went to RAID 0." I think the marketing hype really does drive most "enthusiasts."

Sidenote: for all you who want to make comparisons, please do it this way: run a system with a single drive, then run the same system with two identical drives, both of which are identical to the drive in the first run. That should be the only basis for the comparison, as it will keep all other things equal.

The conclusion is simple, and it's been laid out for you time and time again: most home users, including "enthusiasts," do not benefit from a RAID 0 setup enough to justify the increased cost and greatly reduced reliability (1/n that of a single drive set-up, where n is the number of drives in the array. And yeah, n can be more than 2 for the ill informed).
Unless, you do a lot of tasks that require sequential transfers of large quantities of data, such as media editing, serving, etc.

Somehow, though, people can not read the paragraph above completely, and all these posts are fruitless. Sorry, I am quite cynical on this point by now. But I support you in your fight for better informed masses.

Well, i'm not going to argue. I'm just going to say that i'm not a "regular" user. I mega task. Whenever I play a game, I usually have Firefox open, Messenger, a downloading program, Itunes/and or Media player, and a ripping program open. No regular user would/could do what I do on a regular basis, and therefore wouldn't require the power I need to do what I do. Laptop's are good for the masses . Yes Alt+Tab is my close friend! LOL.

If you don't like RAID, don't use it. If you do like RAID, can afford it, and like what it can/does do, all the more power to you. I am happy with my setup

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: Re: raid 0 game loading times
randomcow wrote:
Quote:
Actually I use a crappy little program called Super DVD Ripper (anyone know of a better DVD ripper?)


Maybe DVD Decrypter?


Second that. Cool

Thanks guys, I will try this out probably this weekend!

 

[plankmeister]

Well I do a lot of video editing, so I use RAID0.... I notice a difference when scrubbing through the timeline. I also work with LARGE photoshop files... Also notice a difference vs. non-raid. One thing that helps a lot is running defrag every couple of days to stop those file fragments getting out of control. Have done it and always will, and my files are open in a jiffy!

 

[choirbass]

oh, most definetly , no doubts about image editing performance with raid 0

its just the other claims of unfounded raid 0 performance for gaming that were being addressed

 

[nukemaster]

Just gonna toss in my 2 cents here....

RAID0 IS faster for loading games.... why? hmmmm lets see now my Athlon64(with half the ram worse timings and a X850XT) 3200 owned my core 2 in load times...y? RAID 0

Once i got my raid 0 back on here....bang....i win

I am going to say it depends on the game....guild wars uses bandwidth up the ying yang to load maps....its all in like one big ass file...raid helps that....COH/COV while not in a big file also loads faster.... Wolf ET.... well lets just say i don't see the load screens for some maps...Half Life 2.... faster....

I am not saying you are gonna half your load times....as there will always be a bottleneck somewhere.....but it sure is faster....and for recording high bit rate video....it sure is nice to have...

To sum it up RAID0 is your friend.....

and IGN....well there dumb asses....after all go back to the review for castlevania for n64....ohhhh booohoooo the blurry textures......then zelda....ohhh clear textures....there the same damn game engine and texture level.....They are one of the most biased places around....they never even play the games they review to the end....
yes they have sources....but try a few more games....

 

[choirbass]

okay... then you can honestly tell me, that having 4 raptors in raid 0 is going to nearly cut my game loading time down to 1/4 then, of a single raptor?? or down from 1 minute to load a level on a single raptor, down to only ~15 seconds?

now... do you think youre honestly being realistic then, if you think thats close to being remotely true in most cases? (when it comes to game level loading)

 

[SuperFly03]

How many sources do we have to provide for you to open up you mind for 1 second to realize that RAID 0 doesn't help load times?

Oh and BTW that wasn't IGN's doing, that actual source of that information is Maximum PC Magazine....Another link, Anandtech

 

[Chainzsaw]

How many sources do we have to provide for you to open up you mind for 1 second to realize that RAID 0 doesn't help load times?

Ok now your posting BS. You want proof? Here are some threads.

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=2527735

http://forum.oscr.arizona.edu/archive/index.php/t-2589.html

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=f8dac480986fba79149dc35a42596e70&t=1001325&page=10&pp=20

These guys DID notice a difference in GAME LOADING TIMES, some even noticed the cut was almost half the time!

from the last link I liked the following:

While it might not be cost effective, there are still applications for it. There's always diminishing returns, and performance doesn't always scale linearly with investment.

Yup, I don't mind for paying for that "extra bit" of speed. If it saves me hours/days in a year, w00t!

SuperFly03, why do you hate RAID 0 so much? Just because you don't like it and YOU think it's no good, doesn't mean the rest of us don't like it. I like it, I like my games loading that much faster, I like my windows being able to be used as soon as the desktop appears, I like the encoding speed. I like I like!

To really get the most performance out of a RAID 0 system, you would need a dedicated RAID Controller on your PCI-EXPRESS lane to handle all the I/O transactions.

I think someone should lock this thread it's starting to get out of hand.

Here's the end all be all answer:

If you're a "regular home user, who surfes the net, does gaming, and doesn't encode movies, RAID 0 (maybe RAID 1) is not for you"

If you're a "power user, who constantly mega/multi-tasks, hate's waiting for games to load/ windows to load, encodes movies/music and does large file transfers, RAID 0 COULD BE for you!"

So yes, IN FACT RAID 0 DOES help loading times, but you have to be willing to put the INVESTMENT into it. Sure I could have spent less $$ on my RAID 0 Raptors, and put in a newer/better video card or something else, but I would rather have an all-around great system. All your other components have to be up to spec also, so you don't just have one weak point.

 

[choirbass]

*sigh*... can you find a credible review though, indicating performance by numbers? not just other seemingly identical threads to this one... because people in those threads are saying practically the same things.

and okay, because numbers seemingly cant be provided... ill give the benefit of the doubt of a 1-2 second improvement, from a 20 second total load time... ..there, you have your 1 second improvement, as a result of having raid 0... and 19 seconds left unaccounted for, that raid 0 wasnt able to assist in helping with.

although those numbers are made up, theyre still along the lines of being fairly accurate, within a second or two, of real performance

but, again, if that marginal benefit is worthwhile enough to invest in raid 0, for your games, then by all means.

 

[SuperFly03]

How many sources do we have to provide for you to open up you mind for 1 second to realize that RAID 0 doesn't help load times?

Ok now your posting BS. You want proof? Here are some threads.

Here we go again. I have said "game load times" so many times i figured it was implied. I am not discussing file access, or windows load times.

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=2527735

Great find... wait there are no benchmarks only perceptions of humans and descriptions of the technology.

http://forum.oscr.arizona.edu/archive/index.php/t-2589.html

That is dealing with synthetic benchmarks and HDTach... and referring to Windows load times, again that isn't my point. Gaming load times are my point.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=f8dac480986fba79149dc35a42596e70&t=1001325&page=10&pp=20

These guys DID notice a difference in GAME LOADING TIMES, some even noticed the cut was almost half the time!

from the last link I liked the following:

While it might not be cost effective, there are still applications for it. There's always diminishing returns, and performance doesn't always scale linearly with investment.

Where anywhere in that thread did they talk game loading performance?

I've said many times before there are instances where RAID 0 is great, but not for loading games. If you page alot during game play that is one thing, loading games is another, loading windows is yet another point, and file transfers are yet still another separate point.

Yup, I don't mind for paying for that "extra bit" of speed. If it saves me hours/days in a year, w00t!

Fine, I never said you shouldn't, but rather you shouldn't buy it for the intention of speeding up you game load times.

SuperFly03, why do you hate RAID 0 so much? Just because you don't like it and YOU think it's no good, doesn't mean the rest of us don't like it. I like it, I like my games loading that much faster, I like my windows being able to be used as soon as the desktop appears, I like the encoding speed. I like I like!

And I like independently verifiable information which you have yet to give on game loading performance. I am not contesting windows load time (once you have detected the array and actually begin loading) or file access speed.

To really get the most performance out of a RAID 0 system, you would need a dedicated RAID Controller on your PCI-EXPRESS lane to handle all the I/O transactions.

There is a dedicated controller, I believe you are talking about a dedicated partiy calulator, which is only necessary for RAID 5/6. In RAID 0/1 the controller just issues two write/read commands instead of the normal one.

I think someone should lock this thread it's starting to get out of hand.

Only if you can't control yourself.

Here's the end all be all answer:

If you're a "regular home user, who surfes the net, does gaming, and doesn't encode movies, RAID 0 (maybe RAID 1) is not for you"

If you're a "power user, who constantly mega/multi-tasks, hate's waiting for games to load/ windows to load, encodes movies/music and does large file transfers, RAID 0 COULD BE for you!"

So yes, IN FACT RAID 0 DOES help loading times, but you have to be willing to put the INVESTMENT into it. Sure I could have spent less $$ on my RAID 0 Raptors, and put in a newer/better video card or something else, but I would rather have an all-around great system. All your other components have to be up to spec also, so you don't just have one weak point.

There is always a weak point, there is always a bottleneck. The only difference is where it is. Computers constantly get faster, so the bottleneck is always moving.

 

[Chainzsaw]

Wow supafly. I give up on you man.

I'll let you think you're right

 

[SuperFly03]

Wow supafly. I give up on you man.

I'll let you think you're right

It's called professional skepticism. I have data from a variety of sources to back me up, what do you have? If you have data showing that games load faster, I will keep an open mind, but thus far you haven't provided much, if any evidence to the contrary of my independent 3rd party data.