2x7200RPM vs. Single Raptor

[johan851]

I asked nikhsub1 this directly, but I'm also curious what general people think. I'm about to embark on a storage restructuring adventure here, and I'm hoping for some user input. Currently, I have, on an ICH7R:

1 740GD (oldest model)
2x 1600JD (RAID 1)
1x Seagate 7200.10 320GB

I was thinking about dropping the Raptor and the 1600JD's (these two are definitely going) and going with 2x 250GB 7200.10's in matrix raid, probably 100GB in RAID 0 and 200GB RAID 1, with the RAID 0 as the OS/apps drive. In addition to that, I'd probably get a pair of 320GB 7200.10's in RAID 1 as data storage. I'm sure you've seen the thread here:

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=467848

Matrix RAID on those 250GB drives really looks pretty decent, but I'm a little torn.

Depends on what you consider faster. Raid 0 is a nice benchmark but in reality, it does very little to enhance desktop performance. Seek times are what make drives feel fast. Raptors own in that regard and raid does nothing to improve seek times, it actually can hurt. I used to run raid 0 on everything. I don't anymore and don't miss it a bit. I now run a 150GB raptor and it is plenty fast. Sure I dont have 200mb/sec transfer, but no one really needs that. What are you transferring to? Another drive? That will be the bottleneck then.

Which I know is pretty much true for anything we overclockers use computers for. I've always been on the fence in this debate, and I recently re-read the Anandtech article on how much RAID 0 doesn't help things. They did use an ICH5R though, so I'm wondering how that affected their results. I'm not the kind of person who is real sold on HDTach results - I know that what you see in Winstone and such is going to be much more indicative of a hard drive's "real" performance.

What I'm really torn on is the Raptor's seek times vs. cheaper drives and more space. I have a lot of data that I would really rather not lose, so RAID 1 is kinda a big deal for me. Going with the Seagate matrix RAID would give me another 200GB of RAID 1 space, which I could really use.

I've dismissed RAID 5 as an option because of the complexity and the difficulty it would pose when changing platforms. The only way around that is a $300 controller, and...well...yeah.

What it really boils down to is whether or not I'll be disappointed with a 2x250GB RAID 0 setup in place of my Raptor.

Does anyone have any input on this? Is there any point to upgrading to a newer generation Raptor, or am I throwing cash down a hole? I've been searching and searching for data on the real world performance of 2 x 7200RPM's in RAID 0 vs. a Raptor, but can't find a whole lot.

[Stupidpenguin]

Here is an article that covers that exact topic

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

[dominick32]

Johan,
Nice talking to you again bro. Anyway, check out my Matrix setup with two 150 gig raptors: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=476776

The Matrix will give you a 6ms Random Access Time by using the top 20gb's of the array. :drool: Not to mention a 180 MB/s sustained read. <--- With only two drives.:eek:

[johan851]

Hey, what's up dominick. Thing is that I simply can't afford a pair of 150gig Raptors - don't have anywhere near that kind of money. I'd like to keep it in the $150 ballpark.

Edit: Thanks for the link Penguin, I think this is just what I want. I don't think you're stupid at all. :D

Looks like Raptor ADFD 16mb cache performance is up around 20% from the 00FLC0 version, and that version is faster than mine...would a 740ADFD be worth it?

[dicecca112]

get some one to bench two 7200s and I'll bench my 74gb 8mb cache raptor. And there you go, gives you some hard numbers to look at

[dominick32]

Looks like Raptor ADFD 16mb cache performance is up around 20% from the 00FLC0 version, and that version is faster than mine...would a 740ADFD be worth it?
Johan,
This was my first consideration. Go ahead and buy 2 of the updated 74G-16cache Raptors and raid them. I can only assume that using a maximum of 20GB on the Raid 0 performance array the matrix can get you almost identical sustained reads to my own. Not to mention your Random Access time will definitely be below 6.0 :drool: (My 150's have a slower stock RAT...)

Good luck in whatever you decide. I am so very pleased with XP Application Performance that I am even considering another 150 for 3X Raid0.... :bang head

[johan851]

Well, it's a ballpark of $150. Two updated Raptors is more like $320. :D

Also, the TomsHardware article doesn't always have benches from their RAID 0 setup. They sort of drift in and out, and it's a little hard to tell what's going on. It's really an incomplete set of results, and the NL35's are notably slower than the 7200.10's...

[hyperasus]

2 x 7200rpm no question. In fact, I have 4 raptors for sale LOL.

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=467848

[dominick32]

2 x 7200rpm no question. In fact, I have 4 raptors for sale LOL.

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=467848

For a price to performance standpoint 2 X 7200 is definitely the way to go. But for a maximum performance standpoint (without considering price) either 2 X 10,000rpm 150 or 74 Raptors will do the trick in the Matrix...:beer:

Lets just pretend money doesnt matter, for comparison sake:

2 X 10,000rpm Raptor Raid 0

http://www.strippoli.com/raptorraid.JPG


2 X 7200rpm Perpendicular Raid 0

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h201/vbin/HDTachIntelRaid0.jpg

Notice a few differences in terms of performance: CPU Usage(although HDtach skews this result), Random Access, and Sustained Read.

[johan851]

Those two screenies aren't from the same rig, are they? Only thing I doubt about their accuracy is CPU utilization.
2 x 7200rpm no question. In fact, I have 4 raptors for sale LOL.
I'd be interested in hearing more about that. I saw your for sale thread, but did you try both the single Raptor and the 2x7200RPM drives? And your conclusion was that the 250's were a better setup?

[dominick32]

Those two screenies aren't from the same rig, are they? Only thing I doubt about their accuracy is CPU utilization.

I do also Johan. Especially with this proggie. HDTach has a tendency to skew CPU utilization results all the time. One benchie would be 10 %, only to see the same benchy 5 minutes later @ 3%. lol

However, if you do find a way to purchase 2 X 74g's, I would be damn curious to see if those access times would be in the 5's with the Matrix. :drool:

[hyperasus]

I have 4 74gb raptors(soon to be up for sale) and 4 250gb seagate perp drives. I matrix raided a 15gb slice out of both setups. I much prefer the seagates. The raptors were getting amazing seak times of 5ms, but the benchmarks were the only place I could see the diff. In real world performance the perps feel much quicker. Windows boot time is especially faster. Photoshop loads quicker with the seagates. Not sure if it is the SATAII or NCQ that does it. IMHO it is a mistake to waist money on raptors if you have Intel Matrix RAID. Even if you have the money to buy 150gb raptors, the money would be better spent on 500gb or 750gb seagates. I'm not saying price/performance is better on the seagates. I'm saying price and size aside, perp drives are faster on matrix raid for real world use. For the AMD boys......guess raptors are the only choice.

[dominick32]

I have 4 74gb raptors(soon to be up for sale) and 4 250gb seagate perp drives. I matrix raided a 15gb slice out of both setups. I much prefer the seagates. The raptors were getting amazing seak times of 5ms, but the benchmarks were the only place I could see the diff. In real world performance the perps feel much quicker. Windows boot time is especially faster. Photoshop loads quicker with the seagates. Not sure if it is the SATAII or NCQ that does it. IMHO it is a mistake to waist money on raptors if you have Intel Matrix RAID. Even if you have the money to buy 150gb raptors, the money would be better spent on 500gb or 750gb seagates. I'm not saying price/performance is better on the seagates. I'm price and size aside, perp drives are faster on matrix raid for real world use. For the AMD boys......guess raptors are the only choice.

I truly find that hard to believe. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just curious, did you have the new 74 raptors or the older 8mb 74g's? <-- Because this would make a HUGE difference in your opinion.

[johan851]

^ See, if I raided Raptors I'd be using the older 8mb 740GD FLA0 variety. I'd probably buy one of Hyperasus', actually.

I find it hard to believe too, as it does seem to fly in the face of a lot that I've heard, but it's worth consideration.

Hyperasus, do you have any measured performance data for the two setups? It's interesting that someone would actually go for 4x250's over 4xRaptors...I wonder if there's a possibility of placebo effect?

[dominick32]

^ See, if I raided Raptors I'd be using the older 8mb 740GD FLA0 variety. I'd probably buy one of Hyperasus', actually.



At first I was very skeptical with Hyperasus's statement but thanks to Johan we know the reason why his old Raptors were outperformend by the perpendiculars. The older 8mb cache raptors are much slower than the newer raptor revision. Not only by a slim margin, we are talking as much as 25% more performance.

I highly doubt that 4 X 7200 perpendicular drives in raid 0 would outperform 4 X 10,000 rpm raptor (newer model w/16mb) in raid 0. It just does not make any sense to me. Especially after my own benchmarking, forget the synthetic HDTach benchie that I put up. In general usage, this new setup on the matrix literally blows away my older 2 X74G setup.

Not sure if it is the SATAII or NCQ that does it.
SATAII will have no affect on your 7200 rpm drives being "substantially" faster than the raptors. Nor will native command queing.

Sorry for being so questioning, I just dont see how that statement you made could be correct. Does this mean I need to go out and buy 2 X perpendiculars? lol

[hyperasus]

older 8mb. Yah I had a rough time with it too since I spent all that money on 4 raptors just to have seagates cheap perp drives hand my ass to me. But the truth is the reality of matrix raiding perp drives has not fully set in with people yet. Even pings thread doesnt do them justice. Most people that are using matrix raid are setting up 40+gb raid 0 volumes. I found that making the raid 0 volume as small as possible ( say 10 or 15 gigs) has a big impact on performance, especially on seak times. I'm pretty sure 4 150gb raptors would be faster then my 4 250gb perp drives. But, I cant even imagine how fast a 15gb raid 0 slice out of 4 750gb perps would be. Pretty sure it would be much faster then anything you could do with any raptors. I took screenshots of my raptor vs perp drive experience but I am away from my main rig atm so I dont have access to them. I still have all the drives so maybe if i find the time I could do an official raptor vs seagate matrix raid thread.

[johan851]

Yeah, if the perpendicular drives are substantially faster than old Raptors I'll have to go that route. I can't afford a pair of new Raptors, especially considering that I get so much more storage for half the price with perpendicular drives. I realize that the new Raptors are kicking the old ones around - that much is apparent at Storage review. I was looking at it earlier today, and they are around 20-25% faster in most benchmarks.

Even though performance gains are nice with really small partitions, I'll probably end up with an 80-100gig RAID 0 partition. Need space for OS, important apps, etc.

Actually, now that I think about it, I could do Matrix RAID on the 250's and the 320's, couldn't I? Or does 4 Matrix RAID partitions make the ICH7R unhappy?

[hyperasus]

Matrix raid will only do 2 volumes at a time. Best thing to do is make your 100gig raid 0 volume, then just partition it as you like. Make a 15gig partition for windows/applications, go larger only if you need it for games you like or something. Then you can use the second partition on your raid 0 for other applications and whatnot. Only one down side to that. Even though windows would be installed on that 15gb partition, which is basically the same as if you just made a 15gb raid 0 volume, most of the HDD benchmarks test the drive not the partition. So benchies would be low for your windows partition.

[johan851]

2 volumes total for the controller, or two volumes per set of disks?

[dominick32]

Matrix raid will only do 2 volumes at a time. Best thing to do is make your 100gig raid 0 volume, then just partition it as you like. Make a 15gig partition for windows/applications, go larger only if you need it for games you like or something. Then you can use the second partition on your raid 0 for other applications and whatnot. Only one down side to that. Even though windows would be installed on that 15gb partition, which is basically the same as if you just made a 15gb raid 0 volume, most of the HDD benchmarks test the drive not the partition. So benchies would be low for your windows partition.

That is definitely the way to go Johan.

I set mine up with 2 -150 raptors and a theoretical maximum of 290GB's of storage. I created my OS booting slice at 20 GB's in Raid 0 with an 128K stripe and I used the remaining 270 GB's on another Raid 0 slice with a 16K stripe. I am sure you have been reading the threads including myself, Bings and Hyperasus's responses: The matrix actually creates a situation where the system believes that you only have a 20 gig drive in raid 0 and uses the fastes portion of the platter. It actually cut my 8.5ms access time all the way down to 6.1..

All I have to say is any 2 drives anyone chooses for Raiding on the matrix is highly advisable and highly recommended by myself. This controller/software combo is definitely kicking ass.

[hyperasus]

OH sorry. per set of disks.

[johan851]

Right, I understood how the slicing is working, and doing great things for performance. That makes sense for a lot of reasons.

I'm going to eventually (in a couple weeks) have a pair of 250GB 7200.10's and a pair of 320GB 7200.10's. On 320GB is on the way, and I'll get the 250GB's this week, pretty likely. I was thinking of of doing a small RAID 0 partition on the 250's, with the rest in RAID 1, then doing the same on the 320GB's so that I could have some RAID 0 scratch space for the pagefile, video encoding, that kind of thing. Will that work?

Edit: The 250's perform a little better than the 320's due to a higher data density, correct?

[hyperasus]

Yes that would work fine, but, why are you getting more 250s? Why not get more 320s and do a 3 or 4 drive raid? Much much better off with 4 drives raided then two sets of 2 drive raids. Getting 3 or 4 drives on that raid volume does amazing things for the read/write speeds.

[johan851]

Mostly complexity, I think. It'd be hard to migrate to a three or four drive array with only 5 SATA ports. I also get more RAID 1 space this way.

Haven't bought anything yet, by the way. I'd like to sleep on this, at least. I'll probably order tomorrow sometime, since I'm getting some other stuff from the Egg for a customer anyway. I'd also like to get some input from another forumer or two. Not to discredit the help I've gotten from you guys tonight. You've been pretty awesome.

[johan851]

Will Matrix RAID do this? And can I add drives to the RAID 0 partition piece by piece? I think that's the only way I could get a 4-drive RAID 0 setup up and running.

*EDIT* Read over the Intel step-by-step instructions, and it looks like it won't let you do this.

[hyperasus]

johan851, you can always make your raid 1,5, or 10 volume and then partition it in to 2 drives if you like. I you are not hard up for space then I'd recomend raid 10 because it is very fast and offers outstanding redunduncy properties.

And regarding the 250s being faster than the 320s......I dont think this is true. 250s have more dence platters, but the 320s have more platters. In this case they are close enough that having the extra space of the 320 will do more good then harm. This is still speculation since I havent seen any direct comparisons, but seems to me that more platters/more space would = more "cream"

[johan851]

I think you're right on the 320's, hyperasus. If anything they're a little too close to call, but it never hurts to default to the bigger drives. GB/$ is better on the 320's, too.

I don't really want to do RAID 5 because I have a feeling it won't transition well to another platform, and it'll be harder to move my existing data over (maybe). If I do RAID 0+1 I won't be able to do the Matrix trick where I use the fastest portion of the drive for the RAID 0 section...less space that way too. I lose 640 gigs as opposed to...say, 80.
johan851, you can always make your raid 1,5, or 10 volume and then partition it in to 2 drives if you like.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Picture, maybe? Because if it's simple and doesn't involve RAID 5, I'm all for a 4-drive RAID 0 fiesta.

[johan851]

Also, pulled the trigger on three more 7200.10 320's. Brings the total up to four, they should all get here around Thursday. Newegg's buybarracuda code started working again, so I made three independent orders of one drive each. :D

That's a lot of cash, but I figure I'll be happy I made the investment down the road.

[Rattle]

whats the code for discount ?

[Rattle]

yeah i got that much lol

doesnt seem to work though where is it applied exactly ?

[johan851]

When you check out, in the "promotion code" box. It's been off and on all summer, so it might've stopped working again.

[Rattle]

cool thanks I think I am gonna order 2


EDIT doesnt seem to be working

EDIT II only works on the 320 DOH

[johan851]

Well, the 320 is a better deal. $10 more for 70 gigs of space.

[Rattle]

Well, the 320 is a better deal. $10 more for 70 gigs of space.


yessir indeed

[David]

I don't see the items in question listed in the classifieds, hence all reference to the items have been removed from this thread.

If they are for sale, put them in the classifieds. Keep the thread on track.

[johan851]

Thanks David, appreciate it. I'll update when I get my drives.

[Max0r]

Yes, keep me updated. $400 for a 4x320gb raid 0 sounds verrrry tempting. ;) Need more data!

[johan851]

Well, I won't put it all in RAID 0. I'm really more about redundancy and simplicity than speed. But I'll figure something out.

[Rattle]

just ordered 2 of these perps, be here friday

[johan851]

Hey, guess who got the three more 320GB 7200.10's today, bringing their total up to four?

Sup. :cool:

I'll hopefully get some sweet numbers for you guys by tonight, even though I'm busy these days. Very busy. Unfortunately busy. :(

[bing]

Eagerly waiting for the result ! :D

[johan851]

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3826/720010sf9.png (http://imageshack.us)


There it is. Four drives in RAID 0, write back enabled, with 15gb from each physical drive. :)

[Rattle]

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3826/720010sf9.png (http://imageshack.us)


There it is. Four drives in RAID 0, write back enabled, with 15gb from each physical drive. :)


badass !

[Phrenetical]

holy wowsers batman

where is the CPU utilisation though, or what was it?

[johan851]

0%, right above the average read speed. :D

[Phrenetical]

You using a controller or the main board?

[johan851]

This is on the mainboard, ICH7R southbridge.

[deathman20]

Heres my results as well. Just 1 less drive.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4858/stn6.th.jpg (http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stn6.jpg)

0% utilization also with the ICH8R southbridge.

[Phrenetical]

what causes the CPU usage i saw in the other posts then between 4% - 15%, i must be missing something.

soz raid newbie, trying to get up to speed.

[deathman20]

Well I know I remember seeing it also and in my case you would its using 100% of my CPU power just showing all those instances of HDTach. Damn thing chews up CPU power just sitting there.

[johan851]

what causes the CPU usage i saw in the other posts then between 4% - 15%, i must be missing something.
They're probably multitasking in the background or something.

[Max0r]

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Screw raptors I think I know what I'm getting for my next system. =p

[bing]

hmm, how come I don't see any screen shot ?

[johan851]

hmm, how come I don't see any screen shot ?
I don't know. There's only two on this page...