Raid vs raptor

Suffix

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
I was looking into raptor drives and maybe even raptor raid setups for a computer I wanted to build, but a raptor raid was way out of my price range. I was wondering how a sata raid with say 7200 rpm drives would compare to a single raptor drive? I found allot of posts relating to raptor raids vs single raptor but I havnt seen this subject discussed, any input?
 

nobly

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2005
854
0
18,980
0
It'd be more beneficial if you told us what you're planning to do with it and what kind of setup you have.

-its all in the details!
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
0
Raptors are fast because of their low latency and high spin speed (combined with SATA transfer rates)

RAID is faster because it can combine transfer and read/write speeds across multiple drives. There is no single drive faster than any RAID array (within reason)
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
I assume you mean an AID0 array.
What are you doing that makes you think you need that much "power"? Most people have no real need for an AID0 array, and can simply use fast 7200RPM SATA/IDE drives. (don't rule out IDE drives, if dealing with drives from the same family, the IDE ones are a hair faster) RAID was developed for servers, and most people don't push their desktops anywhere near that much.
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
0
That's a bit dumb, Opteron was developed for servers but is often advantagous for desktops (in fact that's the basis of the success of PowerPC), RAID is much faster for transfers and is a luxury that's not too expensive for desktop users. SCSI maybe is a little too much of a luxury for desktop performance due to either small drive size or massive (relative) cost.

But to say RAID is exclusively for servers, is really stupid, have you seen how many boards from the last 5 years have come with a RAID controller? That should answer your point.
 

jap0nes

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2006
918
0
18,980
0
Raptors are fast because of their low latency and high spin speed
the low latency is cause by faster spin speeds, then it's redundant saying that :p

well, i wouldnt go into a raid array... neither i see any need for a raptor. You can buy a single, 16mb cache drive, bigger, cheaper, more silent, colder than a raptor for the same or smaller price... i dont think the performance gain with the raptors are worth these other issues i pointed... just my opinion
 

Onus

Titan
Moderator
As suggested, it might help to know more about your applications. My initial thoughts on RAID for the desktop are that RAID-0 is a high-risk proposition (adding a point of failure) for questionable benefit. RAID-1, however, provides solid data backup. Writes may be a little slower, but with enough RAM in your system, you won't see the difference. If a drive fails, your data is safe. Tell us more about what you need to accomplish with your system, and perhaps we can be more helpful.
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
"But to say RAID is exclusively for servers, is really stupid, have you seen how many boards from the last 5 years have come with a RAID controller? That should answer your point"

So I should drive 120MPH because cars have been able to do that for over 30+years now? There might be places where driving 120MPH and have an AID0 setup make sense. Database servers and racetracks are such places. But just because you can doesn't mean you should. Read the AID0 benchies, but stop looking at the synthetic benchies. Start looking at the real world payoff. Considering the $$$ put into AID0, which doesn't make sense for gaming systems, it would be better spent on GPUs, CPUs, etc.
 

Suffix

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
Well Im into gaming and as I get older and more into it Id just like a fast computer you know? From what I understand a raptor and a raid array do make a difference, if only a slight one still a difference. I havn't built anything or ordered anything Im just doing my research as of now. So far im planning either an athlon x2 3800-4400 or an opteron, but Id also like to wait and see what the new sockets amd and intel are releasing have to offer, being only a few weeks away. From my limited understanding a raid array will allow the computer to read from 2 drives instead of just one, theoretically cutting down on how fast it takes the drive to access information. Now I said it that way because I know its not perfect and each drive still does have to search for the data so It could also in theory take just as long as a non raid setup. But The real question Im asking is like say in loading a game, which is faster in loading the game, the raptor or the raid array. Now for this my better judgement would say the raptor just because the one continious drive is faster than a standard 7200rpm drive and could find and load the data quick. But if a raid array is close to that same speed, a raid array would be WAY cheaper. I mean I could set up 2 80gb sata drives on raid for around $100 easy. And on the other side of the spectrum is a 36gb raptor for $100. I already have some large drives that i could transfer to the new build (2x250gb) that I could use for storage, im just looking for a fast disk system for the OS, games, and the paging file.
 

Suffix

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
I actully found supreme laws post very, very informative to what Im looking for. The idea of the system drive, the 2nd and 3rd drive for a raid array of programs and the swap file (easily restored even if one drive fails, its easy to re-install apps) and then a large drive for data and backups.
 

jap0nes

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2006
918
0
18,980
0
From my limited understanding a raid array will allow the computer to read from 2 drives instead of just one
hmmm linux has a software raid implementation that does that for raid 1. I dont know about other OSes


im just looking for a fast disk system for the OS, games, and the paging file.
buy 2 average HD's, isntall OS, games and apps to one, change page file to the another one. I'm sure it will speed up your system, without the complications of a raid system, specially backup and recovery.
 

jap0nes

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2006
918
0
18,980
0
sure, but it was a very, very, very long post... but i agree with all he said.
The point is, i work at as a system administrator and we dont use raid arrays here. Mainly because they are complicated to setup, but also if a machine fails, we cant take the disk out and put on another machine and just turn it on and run. If we had raid, we would have to put 2 disks in another board which is exactly the same as the original, or else it wont work. Also, if one disk fails, you lose your entire data. Unless you use some raid1 or 0+1, even 5, which will need more disks. Raid 1 increases read speeds and add security, but as you said you're looking for pure speed, that genereally leads to thinking of RAID 0, which i dont recommend at all.

Like i said, if you put 2 disks with no raid, install OS/games/apps and your files and the page file to another one will give more safety, more speed than a single disk, without the risks of RAID0. You can even backup your files to both disks, so if one disk fails you dont lose your important data. Also, if something goes wrong you can boot from a recovery disk, mount your disk to another computer, etc, etc.

Like someone said that just because consumer motherboards are shipping with raid controllers it means that raid is not restricted to server environments, but i think it is... putting a raid chip adds value to the board, but that does not mean it's really necessary or useful. Raid is kinda like SLI.. it does not double your fps, but if you have the money, go for it.
 

Da_Banig

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2006
392
0
18,790
1
[quote=" There is no single drive faster than any RAID array (within reason)[/quote]

What are you talking bout, Raptor beats some RAID drives as well...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/06/wd1500ad_raptor_xtends_performance_lead/
 

Suffix

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
I know this seems silly but backup and recovery are not even really an issue to me. I have 2 computers that I use. One I use for internet browsing, e-mail all that junk and that one I do care about the recovery. So I have 2 drives and one just holds the backups. But for my gaming comp, lets say one drive fails on the raid array, if I follow supreme laws diagram I replace the drive and then all I have to do is re-install whatever games were on that drive. Doesnt seem like that big of a hassle for me, even if it is limited performance increase.
 

jap0nes

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2006
918
0
18,980
0
well, then go for the raid just for the fun of it :)

i made a benchmark once... i ran a database from a raid0 array and from a single disk, and the raid array showed some 40% increase... but databases are high I/O, where raid arrays shows the best results... i dont know about common tasks like gaming or loading applications...
 

Suffix

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
Alright I think my decision is made after seeing the raptor vs raid article, seems like the average raid setup is about on par with the raptor drives, but much cheaper. Thanks for the input everyone, I get where some of you are coming from with pushing away from raid but I mean its also an expereince... I can afford it, its not too expensive, it will be cool to try and if I do get screwed up I can buy a brand new single drive for $50 lesson learned. Sounds like a small risk to me for something that will be cool to try.
 

Da_Banig

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2006
392
0
18,790
1
Do you consider more than $2 per GB reasonable?

That's like charging $1500 for the new 750gb drives.
See, we not talking about price per gig. We are talking about fact, the way you stating
There is no single drive faster than any RAID array (within reason)
is wrong. I am just making a correction not aruging about price per gig or price:performance.
 

Suffix

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
44
0
18,530
0
::whistle:: thats impressive, is that with the onboard raid controller or one of the pci-e ones like supreme talked about?
 

moparman390

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2006
206
0
18,680
0
I have a 10000RPM 74GB Raptor as a system drive and two 7200RPM 320GB WD's in a RAID 1. I suggest you set up your system this way, Raptor as the system drive and use the big 7200RPM drives for the storage array.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY