Matrix RAID vs Dedicated Drives

[Xenithon]

Hi all. I have a question for those who have used Intel's Matrix RAID. I am getting a 965P-DS3P with the ICH8R chipset so will now have the opportunity to use it.

Currently I have 3 HDDs. One is dedicated to the OS, apps and settings. The second is for storage/working files. The third is my backup drive, housing backup files, Acronis images etc. It can either sit inside the box or in my eSATA enclosure.

In my new upcoming setup (which will have 3 brand new drives), is it worth using Matrix RAID? I can see in all the graphs the good performance, but would it be felt in the real-world. I will already be going from the current 150MB/s to 300MB/s (SATA I --> II) and am now deliberating on Matrix RAID?

One final question: if I do use it, with RAID 0 for storage files (speed) and RAID 1 for OS/apps (redundancy) which one should be created first? I recall reading conflicting info about which is better to go first (inside tracks) as opposed to second (outside tracks, which IIRC are faster).

Cheers,
X

[tuskenraider]

Well Matrix arrays are designed for using two drives, do you want to use three? If yes, you can use one drive for the OS and a pair in RAID0 or 1 for data, or you could RAID0 or 1 the OS and a single drive for data. If you go with only two drives, you'd make the OS on the first array and the data on the second, regardless which type of RAID array you use. You have lots of options. I think you should run a Matrix array(s) of your preference on the two and use the third as backup since RAID1 is for redundancy to support uptime, not for securely storing data.

[Xenithon]

Hi there. Indeed that is my plan: the 3rd drive will not be part of any array and will be purely for backup, hence why I may even put it in an eSATA enclosure later on.

My existing system has two internal drives (3rd, backup drive, is external). I have one for the OS and apps. The second for storage/working files.

So would you suggest using the Matrix RAID as opposed to dedicated drives (one for OS, one for storage)? If so I will probably make the RAID1 drive first, then the RAID0 drive.

[tuskenraider]

So would you suggest using the Matrix RAID as opposed to dedicated drives (one for OS, one for storage)? If so I will probably make the RAID1 drive first, then the RAID0 drive.Well I've done testing on my own system to show the benefits of RAID0 in bootup, software install and larger program launches of around 15%, others don't find that worthy of enough of the risks, and sometimes costs, involved. RAID1 will help with read speeds, but not as much as RAID0. The capability to use them both on only two drives is nice whether you do it out of curiousity or need. If using a Matrix setup, I would assume you'd want to do a RAID0 for the OS first to utilize the fastest part of the drive with the fastest RAID implementation and then do a RAID1 for data. You also could make two RAID0 arrays if you'd like, which would basically be the same as partitioning on RAID0 array to keep the OS and data seperate.

[DumpALump]

Most test show the difference in SATA I and SATA II is very little, because the HDs can not read/write at those speeds.

If you do go Raid 0 and Raid 1, have an extra drive for that pagefile. I do a ton of multitasking using my HD's and the pagefile on a 3rd drive has always speeded things up 20-30%. Keep it internal though.

Don't really have an answer about matrix vs just raid for you though.

[Xenithon]

Thanks for the tip.

tuskenraider - I would actually have the OS/Program Files installed on the RAID1. I want that for redundancy and uptime in case of any failure.

[stunt]

Over the last year I have run raid0, raid1, raid10, and ended up settling on 4 80 gig HD raid5 Matrix for OS and APPS. I love it. And believe me, when I boot to my single 80 gig clone drive, there is a SUBSTANTIAL performance drop. I can barely stand to use a single drive anymore.

Theres is a lot talk about software raid5 and hardward raid5. I can say that over the last year Matrix raid5 has been bullitt proof. I lost one of my 80 gig raid drives about 2 months ago. I noticed a system slowdown right away and was warned by Matrix that I was running on 3 drives. I replaced the bad HD and rebooted and Matrix rebuilt my raid array in 20 min. All this time my machine was usable although a bit slower. That sealed the deal for me.

[bing]

Xenithon,

If you're willing to spend some time on trying disk imaging program like Acronis, putting your OS/Apps in Raid 0 will deliver you much more performance. Check my single post in the Matrix sticky on how I manage to protect my Raid 0 which is boot/os/apps/pagefile -> here (http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=4688669&postcount=172)

Or, since you have the 3rd drive, it will be handy for backing up the boot/os/apps from the raid 0 slice (in matrix raid config) if you don't trust the Raid 1 slice.

Yes, uptime will be slower compared to Raid 1 in the even single drive failure, have to wait until the replacement drive ready.