RAID; will it be worth it?

[Guest]

Should I take the plunge and buy a RAID controller card since I need to buy a controller card for my new ATA/100 harddrive.
Will i see differences playing games useing RAID or will I see it just while it loads up?Im new to this technology and doing alot of reading up on it ,but want some of your guys input too. I do know I will have to purchase another harddrive.
WaynesWorld

 

[blah]

Games are graphix card and memory driven, databases are good thing for raid. But anyway, have no idea why you need to waste yer money and time for raid which will give you 5 secs increase on boot and 1 sec to open app? I have an IBM 30 gig one and it boots in 30 secs in ME and 50 secs in W2k. I think its ok, but it is just my view.... hehe

K7 + KT7 + MX300 + VooDoo3000 =

 

[Lucol]

Blah is right about the performance difference. A RAID setup is justified when you need your data to be secure, for example a RAID 1 setup, or you need pure performance RAID 0, or you need both, RAID 5, or RAID 0+1. For databases, video editing, and working with large files in general, it's a huge performance boost if setup correctly, or if you have very important data and/or you need good uptimes. For gaming and regular office type work, the performance gain isn't really worth the investment in my opinion, but others might disagree.

 

[Guest]

I've been seeing lots of general statements about the performance increases due to a raid setup. Who's got real benchmarks they can show me? I'd like to see a SCSI vs IDE/Raid setup.


- Every private citizen has a public responsibility

 

[RamaV]

Ive been debating IDE versus SCSI for about a year now. I have a workstation that i use for alot of gaming and alot of office apps, and i do ALOT of multitasking with it. The reason ive pretty much decided to go IDE Raid is not only for the increase in overall bandwidth/speed, but because the newest Raid controllers im seeing now also will significantly lower CPU usage. Some may say, well hell, spend that money on a faster CPU then. I plan on UGing that in the future, but even with the fastest CPU, if yuor losing whole percentages for HD use, then your always gonna be losing out.
All the other arugments are valid too. Raid was originally designed as a structure for securing backups of files. But considering the bandwidth improvements you get, its now being used more for that reason. I dont have benchmarks for you, but you can checkout a few places:
<A HREF="http://www.promise.com" target="_new">http://www.promise.com</A>
&
<A HREF="http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditindex.html?docType=Guides" target="_new">http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditindex.html?docType=Guides</A>

You wont get benchmarks, but itll explain pretyt clearly the numbers for ya.

Rama

" He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"

 

[RamaV]

2 things i shoulda mentioned:

1) you said you only just got one new ATA100 HD. Raid only works with 2 or more. Unless you plan on getting another, dont even drive yerself nuts over this. Make sure yer MB has an ATA100controller, if not, and you only have one HD, just buy an ATA100 PCI controller.

2) as far as cost: im planning on buying 2-45gig IBM 75GXPs, about 150 each (on the high side). Plus it looks like i may go with the promise SuperTrak 100 (which has a RISC CPU on board, and comes with 16 megs of EDO DIMM, which can be UGed) for about 323. So far 623 or so, im getting 90 gigs. Basically as i read the numbers, an IDE Raid 0, will get about the same speed as one of the highest end SCSI`s--BY ITSELF. SCSI Raid will beat out IDE Raid. But then for 623, you can barely buy a SCSI drive, and certianly not 90 gigs worth. Plus i wont have to worry about cooling the SCSI drives, or noise (my extra 2 cents)

Rama

" He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"