Raptor 10,000 rpm vs RAID 0

[dssnike]

Ok, I am building a new computer and it is going to have a new Q6600 quad core with 2gb of ram, etc etc

Basically it is going to be used for gaming mostly.

I am trying to decide between the usual 10,000 rpm hard drive or what I just learned about yesterday... RAID 0

So... I was wondering instead of me getting a 150gb 10,000rpm hard drive, if I got 2 74gb 10,000rpms and set them on RAID 0 how much of a performance increase would result?

What performance is linked with hard drives in games? Just loading time?

ALSO, what do I need to set up my computer on RAID? I heard all you need is a WINDOWS XP with SP2 or vista+. But how will I connect these to my motherboard, just normal serial connections?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131182

Thats the motherboard im getting.

Thanks!

[phantasm]

Good news is that that motherboard supports RAID 0, 1, 0+1 and 5. As for what kind of gains will you see, that all depends on what your system is doing.

For gaming, RAID 0 is fine, you won't need redundancy or anything.

For true RAID nothing beats a dedicated controller card though.

[dssnike]

Good news is that that motherboard supports RAID 0, 1, 0+1 and 5. As for what kind of gains will you see, that all depends on what your system is doing.

For gaming, RAID 0 is fine, you won't need redundancy or anything.

For true RAID nothing beats a dedicated controller card though.

Nice, but how much better does the controller card make RAID? Substantial performance increase? What is a good card?

Thanks

[phantasm]

The controller allows for more RAID options and sometimes better throughput. It also has better configuration options. Albeit they can be tricky and they're not cheap. A good controller could be $300 and up. The one in my server sells for ~$250 today and it's 8 years old.

[dssnike]

The controller allows for more RAID options and sometimes better throughput. It also has better configuration options. Albeit they can be tricky and they're not cheap. A good controller could be $300 and up. The one in my server sells for ~$250 today and it's 8 years old.

Ok, im not gonna get a card, but doing RAID 0 will show a big increase in performance?

[oakstave]

In a word, yes. It depends somewhat on the type of game, and how often it's accessing data on the HD. Sometimes a mirror RAID (RAID_1) will give you more poke for multimedia applications. The Striping RAID (RAID_0) is the fastest overall through. It has two drawbacks: It's a pain in rear to set up, and if either HD fails, you lose all the data.

[tuskenraider]

Ok, im not gonna get a card, but doing RAID 0 will show a big increase in performance?No. In general, gaming just doesn't benefit from the higher transfer rates of RAID0 and RAID'ing drives doesn't improve seek times except in some cases with high end cards in RAID1. Depending on the RAID controller, I've had anywhere from 0% reduction in launch and load times, to up 15%. Take it from someone who has had his up and downs with RAID performance and has done timing comparisons with exact HDD images to be fair. It can certainly be beneficial in many instances, but for a gamer, mostly not.

[dssnike]

No. In general, gaming just doesn't benefit from the higher transfer rates of RAID0 and RAID'ing drives doesn't improve seek times except in some cases with high end cards in RAID1. Depending on the RAID controller, I've had anywhere from 0% reduction in launch and load times, to up 15%. Take it from someone who has had his up and downs with RAID performance and has done timing comparisons with exact HDD images to be fair. It can certainly be beneficial in many instances, but for a gamer, mostly not.

So just one 10,000 rpm HD will be best for gaming? Not worth the extra money to get RAID 0?

[tuskenraider]

So just one 10,000 rpm HD will be best for gaming? Not worth the extra money to get RAID 0?Well I won't speak for you and say it's not worth it, because for a couple years I ran RAID0. I was fine with doubling my cost to get a small improvement in various tasks from the slowest subsystem of a PC, storage. In my latest system, RAID0 was of no benefit. If you want the chance to pick up a second or two here or there, give it a try, as there's nothing wrong with experiencing RAID first hand. The common sense side of me says get the size Raptor you need and be satisfied.

[Mr.Guvernment]

So just one 10,000 rpm HD will be best for gaming? Not worth the extra money to get RAID 0?


i would say yes.

[Hipcrostino]

i say forget the raptors all together. That a so expensive for a gain you will not see anyway. Grab 2x 500gb+ drives that use dense platers (hence 500gb and up) because the read heads can process more data in same amount of time at other 7200rpm drives, and in some cases even the 10,000rpm drives. Seeks times will be slower, but so what! if you get two, raid0 them, they will wipe the floor with raptors. There are benchs on this forum to prove it. I suggest before making a decition you do as much research as you can about it, I know i am. Raptors just arn't any good for their price in my opinion.

However, if you only want one drive, then a raptor may be a good choice (still too much money though)

[tuskenraider]

Seeks times will be slower, but so what! if you get two, raid0 them, they will wipe the floor with raptors. There are benchs on this forum to prove it. I suggest before making a decition you do as much research as you can about it, I know i am. Raptors just arn't any good for their price in my opinion.

However, if you only want one drive, then a raptor may be a good choice (still too much money though)So do you play benchmarks or games? How is having more STR, but slower seeks "wiping the floor" with them? Which one do you think benefits a gamer more? You always pay a premium for the best drives of course as it is with anything, but it's for the buyer to decide the value of course.

[sp33dball]

I'd say stay away from RAID0. I had the same idea as you about gaming, and ended up having a big hassle, forcing me to reformat my drives twice in a month. Could be I have a bad raid card on my mobo, but if you plan on keep any data, don't do it.

[oakstave]

No. In general, gaming just doesn't benefit from the higher transfer rates of RAID0 and RAID'ing drives doesn't improve seek times except in some cases with high end cards in RAID1. Depending on the RAID controller, I've had anywhere from 0% reduction in launch and load times, to up 15%. Take it from someone who has had his up and downs with RAID performance and has done timing comparisons with exact HDD images to be fair. It can certainly be beneficial in many instances, but for a gamer, mostly not.

I stand corrected...

sp33dball: I had a similar problem with the native RAID on my MB. Huge pain. Reformatted twice, ended up dumping it and doubling my storage instead!

[ToeKneeATX]

i vote for the raptor raid 0, although i am partial and have been using it for 5+ years now. i personally have not really had any hassles with them, other than having to make a floppy for raid drivers every time i would reformat (no need now that i am on vista, flash drives ftw). if you think it would be too much trouble for yourself, just get the single drive and be done with it. i personally prefer 2 over 1, even my storage 'drive' is raid 0 with 2x160gb seagates. =)

[Scott9027]

I would vote for a single drive. Get the Raptor if you want to spend the money, but a single 7200RPM with a 16MB cache would be good enough in my opinion. It's just a matter of deciding if the Raptor is worth the extra $/GB.

[dssnike]

Ok, I am going to go with a single RAPTOR. Thanks guys!!!

[Hipcrostino]

i still wouldn't go wit a rapter. I play games, and intend on having no vital data on my system either. And as for value, yes it is up to the buyer, but come on, 150gb raptors are $300 (http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=150gb+raptor). Thats the same price at most 750gb (http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=750gb) drives, which have dence platers and read/write really quick as a result.

prices are AUD

[Revivalist]

I just thought I'd throw in my two cents . . .

I personally notice the difference between Raptors and other drives when it comes to Windows boot time, large file transfers, and loading large maps in games. . . . I also notice the same thing between running RAID 0 versus a single drive. . .

To me, I don't mind spending a few hundred more to know that I'm getting the best performance possible. So I say go with Raptors in RAID 0. I bought my 160GB Raptors for $140 each (not $300). It's awesome watching them "wipe the floor." :cool:

Edit: One more thing . . . I don't really understand why people have had trouble setting up and maintaining a RAID 0 array. . . . I've found it to be incredibly easy. It's just going into the BIOS, enabling it, going into the RAID BIOS, choosing the RAID format you want (0, 1, 5, etc.), and that's it. . .

[Mr.Guvernment]

read writes is one thing, but seek times is another that makes a big diff, i owned a 74G raptor and loved it and noticed it as well.

[oakstave]

I just thought I'd throw in my two cents . . .

I personally notice the difference between Raptors and other drives when it comes to Windows boot time, large file transfers, and loading large maps in games. . . . I also notice the same thing between running RAID 0 versus a single drive. . .

To me, I don't mind spending a few hundred more to know that I'm getting the best performance possible. So I say go with Raptors in RAID 0. I bought my 160GB Raptors for $140 each (not $300). It's awesome watching them "wipe the floor." :cool:

Edit: One more thing . . . I don't really understand why people have had trouble setting up and maintaining a RAID 0 array. . . . I've found it to be incredibly easy. It's just going into the BIOS, enabling it, going into the RAID BIOS, choosing the RAID format you want (0, 1, 5, etc.), and that's it. . .

Comment on your edit: My board was even "easier" than that. According to the booklet, the EZ RAID_1 could be set up merely by ensuring the board jumpers are at factory settings, then plugging your HD's into SATA port 1 and 2. It would auto-detect my 500gb Seagates, and Tada! RAID_1. All righty I thought... no problem!

Only it didn't work. Detected no drives at all. I checked the jumpers again, worried that my drives were bad, cursed fate, and this time went into the BIOS, and set it to RAID_1... This time it recognized the first drive, but the second HD also appeared as "unallocated". (I didn't try to format it, because this time I had already put the OS on when I realized the RAID wasn't working. I quit troubleshooting at that point, figuring if the purpose of my mirror RAID was to make me feel more confident about my data, it was failing miserably. "What if I finally troubleshoot this RAID, a drive fails, and it can't recover?" It wasn't working as advertised, and I elected to go for 1tb system, and back up my data often. I'm sure some boards/cards have better RAID controllers than others.

Glad it worked for you though!

[Maverick0984]

I just thought I'd throw in my two cents . . .

I personally notice the difference between Raptors and other drives when it comes to Windows boot time, large file transfers, and loading large maps in games. . . . I also notice the same thing between running RAID 0 versus a single drive. . .

To me, I don't mind spending a few hundred more to know that I'm getting the best performance possible. So I say go with Raptors in RAID 0. I bought my 160GB Raptors for $140 each (not $300). It's awesome watching them "wipe the floor." :cool:

Edit: One more thing . . . I don't really understand why people have had trouble setting up and maintaining a RAID 0 array. . . . I've found it to be incredibly easy. It's just going into the BIOS, enabling it, going into the RAID BIOS, choosing the RAID format you want (0, 1, 5, etc.), and that's it. . .

I know I'm being nitpicky, but they were probably 150GB Raptors. Also, the Raptors are built for better seek times and reads on small files.

They won't be any faster then an SATA 3.0Gb/s for large files. You saying you notice a speed difference on that is purely Placebo. SATA 3.0Gb/s will actually be faster on large file transfers since Raptors are only 1.5Gb/s.

I have 2 Raptors in RAID1, btw.

That's why people put their OS's and Program files in RAID0 and leave any type of data storage either off RAID, or something like a RAID1 or RAID5 config. Since RAID0 would be silly to do, and the redundancy is more important then the ability to say "I have these in RAID0".

[Revivalist]

Comment on your edit: My board was even "easier" than that. According to the booklet, the EZ RAID_1 could be set up merely by ensuring the board jumpers are at factory settings, then plugging your HD's into SATA port 1 and 2. It would auto-detect my 500gb Seagates, and Tada! RAID_1. All righty I thought... no problem!

Only it didn't work. . . . Wow. I'm sorry to hear about your problems getting RAID to work. I had an ASUS board before my DFI (it was the A8V I believe) and I was able to get RAID working just like I described above. It didn't require any jumpers at all. . . . Is your motherboard more than a few years old? Maybe RAID is easier to implement on newer boards? :confused:

I know I'm being nitpicky, but they were probably 150GB Raptors. Also, the Raptors are built for better seek times and reads on small files.I bought a set of Raptors that came out of Dell computers. Dell has a special version of the Raptor (model number WD1600ADFD-75NLR1). It's basicaly the 150GB Raptor but the last 10GB has been "unlocked." This part of the drive is typically locked because it is the slowest part of the drive. However, the rest of the drive is not any slower, so it doesn't hurt to have that part unlocked. I like having it unlocked because with four drives in a RAID 0 setup, that provides an extra 40GB of space if I ever need it.

They won't be any faster then an SATA 3.0Gb/s for large files. You saying you notice a speed difference on that is purely Placebo. SATA 3.0Gb/s will actually be faster on large file transfers since Raptors are only 1.5Gb/s. Hmmm . . . . I'm a little confused about this. What you're saying is the opposite of what I thought to be true . . .

My understanding was that the interface (SATA I or SATA II) is a limit on the burst speed, or in other words, the rate at which data can be transferred from the hard drive to the motherboard. SATA I will transfer data at a theoretical rate of 1.5GB/s while SATA II will do so at a theoretical rate of 3.0GB/s. . . .

Since the cache on a hard drive is solid state memory, it can be "dumped" at a rate close to the burst speed. But once the cache is utilized, then the bottle-neck becomes the speed of the spinning platter. . . . For a typical 7200RPM drive, the theoretical transfer rate is around 65MB/s (with real world performance being around 60MB/s according to my testing). For a 10,000 RPM Raptor, the theoretical transfer rate is 72MB/s (with real world performance being around 65MB/s from my testing). . . .

So my understanding was that SATA II only shows an advantage for small data bursts. Most hard drives only have a cache of 16MB, so dumping that small amount of memory at 3GB/s versus 1.5GB/s isn't really noticable. But the time it takes for sustained transfers of larger files can be noticable when you use 10,000RPM Raptors versus a 7200RPM drive . . .

If I am wrong in any of my assesment above, I hope someone might correct me. :)

[tuskenraider]

If I am wrong in any of my assesment above, I hope someone might correct me. :) You're correct, though I've seen a higher average with Raptor transfer rates.


They won't be any faster then an SATA 3.0Gb/s for large files. You saying you notice a speed difference on that is purely Placebo. SATA 3.0Gb/s will actually be faster on large file transfers since Raptors are only 1.5Gb/s. Cache has no affect on large file transfers. And as noted above, the interface doesn't either. There are but a few drives that currently can match a Raptor's 78MB/s average file transfer and most of those are the 750GB+ drives. Seagate has a pair of smaller drives that recently came out as well.

[RangerXLT8]

Definitely get the 2x74 for better performance. 2 drives doing the work of 1(raptor 150). simple as that/

[tuskenraider]

Definitely get the 2x74 for better performance. 2 drives doing the work of 1(raptor 150). simple as that/No, it's not that simple and people like you who clearly haven't had enough experi..................ah, forget it, I'm sick of explaining it.

[Enablingwolf]

I have used a few different setups on this machine. After using it for years. I 'just know' what is faster. This is my experiance, not all based on benches and such.

RAID0 = Great for very large sustained transfers. Like 500megs and larger. Nothig 'mazingly fast, but the twin drives give an edge. it is not an end all solution.

RAID1= Works like a regular drive in most cases. Some seeks did get a very slight bump. Since the cache is now bieng used on two drives. The dinky files get a very slight bump to. Looking at pictures and small clips open a little bit quicker. Long as the same folder is bieng used. jumping around seems to work nomrallly, until you start using the files in same folder work paths.(refer to *)

Raptor(ADFD) = Seeks are really nice and smooth. Nothing amazing, until you hit the sweet spots on the platter. Then it does seems to work faster then an other setup. For most tasks you are doing, it just works. When your moving large amoints of data. The higher disk speeds does show itself. So in combination of the lower seeks and slightly higher transfer speeds. You get a chance to offset the lower seeks while running in RAID0. It is not anything super special.

If you set up in RAID0 you have two drives looking for half a file each. If you use real RAID(x). You then have two or more drives looking for/using one full file. Not each drive looking for/using it's half. That is why RAID0 is a bit slower in smaller files. The cache on each drive is doing the same thing on a real RAID setup. Since each drive in the array has to tell the system it is done.




If your going to be using the drives for long term storage in an array. Use a card. Since if your using onboard and the board happens to fail or you change it out. Using one RAID0 chipset. Your not going to be able to use the data. Since it will not be able to rebuild the array. So for an OS type setup. Onboard RAID does just fine.

That is where sinlge drive does much better then a RAID setup. It is less complex and you cna move the drive from machine to machine. Also, less complex to just use it. time to set it up and use it is also considered.

(*)
If you want complex and actual best of all worlds. SCSI/SaS. Is the best pick. If price is not a concern over performance. Why even consider such a non-robust storage without logic built in. Once you see that you can do many transfers at once on SCSI. It is hard to even think a basic setup even can be considered performance.

My vote is a single drive. If later on you expand. Go for the redundant type setups. Zero is not true RAID. Combine that with an onbaord basic setup. Then the single faster speeds do make sence. Unless you need to combine the sizes of the disks. RAID0 is not more then a fancy JBOD on most boards.

I do give credit for the Matrix, taking onboard to another level. It has some nice logic to it.

[One Bull]

The way I see it:
RAID0: Better transfer rates at the cost of some seek time
Raptor: better seek times compared to 7200rpm drives.
Gaming: most benefit from seek times..

But that's from a raptor owner though..

[oakstave]

[QUOTE=Revivalist][COLOR="Cyan"]Wow. I'm sorry to hear about your problems getting RAID to work. I had an ASUS board before my DFI (it was the A8V I believe) and I was able to get RAID working just like I described above. It didn't require any jumpers at all. . . . Is your motherboard more than a few years old? Maybe RAID is easier to implement on newer boards? :confused:
QUOTE]

As you can see in the sig, it's a fairly new board. The P5W DH Deluxe has several RAID controllers onboard. Specifically the Intel ICH7R, and Silicone image Sil4723. It supports RAID 0, 1, 5 and 10 through a cross-configure between the two RAID controllers. The RAID_1 is advertised as "Plug and Play". There is a jumper on the MB, (which is factory set at RAID_1) and all you do, according to the manual is: Install the HD's, Install the OS, install the backup utility from the MB CD, Reboot. Pretty cool, except it didn't work. As I said, I just decided that if I'm worrying about my data because the RAID is acting wonky, why bother? I'm sure with a little troubleshooting and some time on the forums, I would have figured it out. Next time I need to reformat, I'll give it another shot. But from everything I'm reading, the bump in performance is not so breathtaking that in a rush to do it. I'll probably go with Big RAID next time. It says you will get more than the sum of the two drives in that configuration, but really, I can't understand how that can be.

Good Thread.

[tuskenraider]

[QUOTE=Revivalist][COLOR="Cyan"] I'll probably go with Big RAID next time. It says you will get more than the sum of the two drives in that configuration, but really, I can't understand how that can be.
More than the sum? I don't see how that's possible. Link?

[oakstave]

tuskenraider: Don't ask me... I just read the manual :confused:

According to the Asus p5w dh manual: "BIG is a storage policy in which multiple physical drives are concatenated and treated as one large volume. This configuration allows you to increase virtual volume size beyond the capacity of the individual drives. Big provides the maximum amount of storage space, but no additional performance or data redundancy."

I think the operative word is 'virtual'. Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

[Enablingwolf]

Sounds like JBOD.

"BIG is a storage policy in which multiple physical drives are concatenated and treated as one large volume. This configuration allows you to increase virtual volume size beyond the capacity of the individual drives. Big provides the maximum amount of storage space, but no additional performance or data redundancy."


This reads, not that is allows more space then physically possible. It reads: as it allows, all the drives to work as one. Creating a drive that is larger then any single drive in the setup.

Pretty much, JBOD meaning just a bunch of disks.

[oakstave]

Sounds like JBOD.

"BIG is a storage policy in which multiple physical drives are concatenated and treated as one large volume. This configuration allows you to increase virtual volume size beyond the capacity of the individual drives. Big provides the maximum amount of storage space, but no additional performance or data redundancy."


This reads, not that is allows more space then physically possible. It reads as it allows all lthe drives to work as one. Creating a drive that is larger then any single drive in the setup.

Pretty much, JBOD meaning just a bunch of disks.

:bang head Ahh... I get it. It's poorly written. Of course concantenated disks would be larger than each of the individual disks... The whole 'beyond the capacity' part threw me.

[Enablingwolf]

It is over wrote actually. Hence why I had to add my own into it.

It is wrote to make it look that much better. Not that is does not work good or anything. It makes it look less boring then plain ol JBOD.

[SH0DAN]

I just dumped 2 73Gb 15k Cheetahs and a raid caching controller,and have done on board raid0 and raid 0+1 and IF you want raid,get a card.Its preferable to always use a card and NOT the on board option.

Less problems and faster.Potentially MUCH much faster if using a caching controller.I used a an Accelaraid 170 +128Mb ram.Much faster then a couple of 74Gb second gen raptors I tried last fall for a few weeks.

I still have the drives,but the controller finally bought the farm a few days ago. :( I did get a lot of use out of it though.

[Scott9027]

No question, you're dealing with another level of performance if you have a quality RAID controller card, but you'll pay for that performance.

[hank123]

dude I bought a raptor cause i figured that it was one of my biggest bottle necks.

I play a lot of BF2 and CSS. I will tell you that I can load a BF2 map in about 8 secs if that.
There really fast.
I wont run raid 0 just for the fact, like others said, its a pain to set up and there could be data lost then ur fawked.

and 300 bucks for a raptor ur on crack. sorry.

buy the 150G u will love it!

[Enablingwolf]

The current offerings of onboard RAID is pretty stable. It is a mature add on for most boards now. Yo run the same risk of loosing the data as if any major setup. If you hae a backup scheme going. It is not much of an issue. The downside, is if you have a large volume after you setup in RAID0 and need to store that image or the backed up files. It then becomes like RAID1 + with out the perks.

It just become a pain when you ned ot modify the setup. It does work good if you have needs for partitioning drives out and want JBOD like setups but want a speed perk or two.