3 Hard disk on RAID0 possible?

[aoch88]

I'm not sure but can someone tell me if it's possible to run 3 hard disks on RAID0? Would I be seeing gains over 2 hard disk setup which I'm running now?

[tuskenraider]

Yes you can, and not unless you manipulate a lot of large files.

[Yahonmaizosz]

you can have even have more than 3 hard drives in RAID 0 if you want to.

[fritzman]

Certainly can... I have 6 atm in this PC.

[Mr.Guvernment]

ou can have as many as your controller supports - but with raid 0 the more drives you add, the more seek times go up after 3 i think, or so showed reviews with raptors, after 3 raptors, seek times didnt improve.

the gain is mainly in moving / working with large files.

[Yahonmaizosz]

ou can have as many as your controller supports - but with raid 0 the more drives you add, the more seek times go up after 3 i think, or so showed reviews with raptors, after 3 raptors, seek times didnt improve.

the gain is mainly in moving / working with large files.

That is exactly true. Do you still have any questions that we could help?:confused::confused:

[noegruts]

ou can have as many as your controller supports - but with raid 0 the more drives you add, the more seek times go up

Why should adding more drives to a RAID 0 array increase the seek time?

...after 3 i think, or so showed reviews with raptors, after 3 raptors, seek times didnt improve.

"didn't improve" is not the same as increasing.

[tuskenraider]

Why should adding more drives to a RAID 0 array increase the seek time?
The more drives there are in an array, the more timing variances introduced into the seeking to a particular location on a disk. This causes a delay since no two drives ever perform exactly the same and the controller must therefore have all the peices of a data set/file whathaveyou before it can be forwarded on. This delay is pretty minimal as can be seen in various examples shown in these forums and elsewhere. This delay is usually a couple tenths of a millisecond at most which is hardly the performance hit it's pointed out to be but exists nonetheless.

"didn't improve" is not the same as increasing. Of course adding drives never improves seek times, just increases them.

[Mr.Guvernment]

^^ what they said, more drives, more seeking to find files on more drives

better the controller, the less the hit in performance.

[aoch88]

I'm just as confused. I already have 2 HDD's in a RAID0 and I love the performance (better than a single drive) but I thought adding another one would be even better?

I know ideally we shold run either 2 or 4 but does it make a lot of sense to run 3 in a RAID-0?

[Jon]

Why does running 3 drives in RAID-0 not make sense? It has nothing to do with whether there are an odd or even number. Increasing platters introduces seek delays, but increases potential throughput. Usage will determine if the trade-off is worth it.

I run 3 drives in RAID 0. I also work with exceptionally large file sizes, so seek times matter very little to me as there may only be a half dozen files on my array at any given time. But, whenI need throughput - I get it...3 is better than 2 and worse than 4 in my case. There is no ideally 2 or 4.

[Abominable1]

Coincidentally, I noticed this thread just before I was about to configure 3 WD6400AAKS drives in RAID0. No real point to this post, just thought it was a cool coincidence. :santa:

[aoch88]

Thanks Jon. What I wanted is a faster Windows boot up, games loading, etc so I guess 3 HDD's in RAID-0 would be a good idea.

Btw, is it possible that ICH9R controller (built in on motherboards) support 2 RAID arrays?

[noegruts]

Btw, is it possible that ICH9R controller (built in on motherboards) support 2 RAID arrays?

Yep. More than two even. If your mobo has 6 SATA connectors and you have 6 drives, you could create three independent RAID arrays (each with two RAID 0 volumes on them if you really wanted to go nuts).

[jason4207]

If you want all RAID0 you can just create 1 large RAID0 array w/ all the disks, and then partition it into as many smaller chunks as you like.

I have 2 640's (600GB actual), and I created a 300GB RAID0 array, and a 450GB RAID1 array. Then during the XP install I partitioned the RAID0 array into 2 150GB partitions. I put XP on the first partition, and I'll be putting Vista on the 2nd partition here soon.

[MikeyLikesItSI]

Thanks Jon. What I wanted is a faster Windows boot up, games loading, etc so I guess 3 HDD's in RAID-0 would be a good idea.

I'm making the same decisions right now and deciding if 2 or 3 would be better. From what Jon and the others are saying, it is just the opposite of what you are thinking.

If you had files that are gigabytes in size, more drives would increase more throughput in terms of MB/sec.

If you are seeking for lots of small files (windows start up), you would want less drives to help increase seek time

Or did i mis-understand?

[tuskenraider]

Or did i mis-understand?You understand correctly.

[aoch88]

Ok, that means if I want Windows, games to load faster, I should stick to 2 HDD's in RAID-0 instead of 3?

Can someone confirm? :)

[Archer36]

Your best bet would be to get 1 more drive and run RAID 0+1 if the controller supports it. Then you don't have to worry about a crash and burn situation if one of the two drives fail. :D

[fritzman]

Would be safer to stick to the 2 x drive Raid0 and use the third as an external backup of the Raid0.

[MikeyLikesItSI]

Is there a general rule of file size where 3+ becomes beneficial? Meaning, if i do a lot of movie encoding/zip file handling, would 3 or more be better then 2? (all figures in raid 0 - i backup with externals so no worries on crashes)

[tuskenraider]

Is there a general rule of file size where 3+ becomes beneficial? Meaning, if i do a lot of movie encoding/zip file handling, would 3 or more be better then 2? (all figures in raid 0 - i backup with externals so no worries on crashes)Too many variables to say. Basically if the drives can't read/write the data as fast as the rest of your system processes it currently, it should help.

[aoch88]

In fact I read quite a number of articles/reviews of hard disks and RAID (2-3 disks vs single). It seems that adding the 3rd hard disk would not give any improved seek time even in the case of Raptors.

I guess the conclusion is that if we want a blazing fast setup, get 2 x Raptors in RAID0 or probably Seagate Barracude 7200.11 (since it's cheap these days) :)

[noegruts]

In fact I read quite a number of articles/reviews of hard disks and RAID (2-3 disks vs single). It seems that adding the 3rd hard disk would not give any improved seek time

I'm not sure why you'd expect adding a third disk to a RAID array (I am assuming you are talking about RAID 0) would result in improved seek time.

Adding more hard disks to a RAID 0 array gives you higher sustained transfer rates, which may be beneficial if you work with large files.

My main system has three ST3250410AS drives and gives me about 300MB/sec throughput, which really helps when I am editing video.

In general, if you have a two-drive RAID 0 array, adding a third will give you a 50% STR increase. Going from 3 to 4 will give you another 33% increase. Going from 4 to 5 gets you another 25%. Make sense?

As I've said here before, there is no universal "best" setup for everybody - it depends upon your needs.

[Yahonmaizosz]

I'm not sure why you'd expect adding a third disk to a RAID array (I am assuming you are talking about RAID 0) would result in improved seek time.

Adding more hard disks to a RAID 0 array gives you higher sustained transfer rates, which may be beneficial if you work with large files.

My main system has three ST3250410AS drives and gives me about 300MB/sec throughput, which really helps when I am editing video.

In general, if you have a two-drive RAID 0 array, adding a third will give you a 50% STR increase. Going from 3 to 4 will give you another 33% increase. Going from 4 to 5 gets you another 25%. Make sense?

As I've said here before, there is no universal "best" setup for everybody - it depends upon your needs.

So will I improve my seek time if I were to add another RAPTOR in my 3x150GB Raptor in RAID 0??? Or will it only slow it down?

[noegruts]

So will I improve my seek time if I were to add another RAPTOR in my 3x150GB Raptor in RAID 0??? Or will it only slow it down?

Umm. Didn't we just go through this?

[Mr.Guvernment]

Raid 0 will be equal too, or slower then a single drive in windows boot time, for one, time to initiate the controller and raid array and then, the potential seek time addition..

a single raptor boot windows faster then a raid 0, due to it's 15k RPM and fast seek time, a raid 0 how ever once windows i loaded, will load programs or move large files faster then a raptor..

it is a trade off...

what i have done in the pat

single drive as my windows OS

raid 0 as my drive to install games on
raid 1 for my docs and other files.

[noegruts]

Raid 0 will be equal too, or slower then a single drive in windows boot time, for one, time to initiate the controller and raid array and then, the potential seek time addition..

I don't know where the idea that a RAID 0 array will have a slower seek time than a single drive came from. And really, who cares how long it takes to boot Windows? Isn't it more important how quickly the computer performs the tasks you want it to perform?

a single raptor boot windows faster then a raid 0, due to it's 15k RPM and fast seek time

The Raptor drives don't spin at 15k rpm, they spin at 10k rpm. The Raptor drives do not have faster seek times than other drives, they have reduced latency, purely because of the increased rotational speed. This results in reduced access time. However, as you point out, the Raptors are now significantly slower than more modern 7200rpm drives in transferring large files, which may be a more important factor for many people these days.

[aoch88]

The fastest setup would be 2 x Raptors in a RAID-0 BUT this would cost a lot of money. There's a review showing 2 x 7200.11 Seagate Barracuda in RAID-0 giving a good fight with the Raptors.

As we all know, the bottleneck today is on the hard disks, no longer CPU or RAM so I'm looking for better seek times for my programs, games, Windows to load a lot faster. I thought adding another HDD into the RAID-0 would help but after everyone's input and reading, I know that this theory isn't correct :D

My next move is to try the 7200.11 Barracudas out.

[dominick32]

If you are after a faster windows boot speed consider running a faster single drive. ie: WD Raptor 74 or 150. The boot speed gains from Raid 0 using a 7200 rpm hdd are going to be minimal, if anything. Read my review on the barracuda in here (you can find the raid 0 article at the end of the single drive article: http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/barracuda

A single raptor is generally faster at booting "things" when compared to a Raid 0-7200rpm setup.

Hope this helps a bit.

I don't know where the idea that a RAID 0 array will have a slower seek time than a single drive came from. And really, who cares how long it takes to boot Windows? Isn't it more important how quickly the computer performs the tasks you want it to perform?


The thing is that windows boot correlates to application boot which correlates to drive seek/access time. Why do newer SSD's generally feel like they blow the doors off standard 7200/10k mechanicals when they sometimes have slower STR's? Because the access time of the drive is phenomenal. I think you are mistaking to mention about the main trade off here. Some people that work with larger files (video/graphic editing, etc.)need a drive with higher STR's, and some people like gamers want a drive with instantaneous OS/APP/GAME boot speed. So, I disagree with your statement that faster seek/access does not correlate to quicker everyday tasks.


The Raptor drives don't spin at 15k rpm, they spin at 10k rpm. The Raptor drives do not have faster seek times than other drives, they have reduced latency, purely because of the increased rotational speed. This results in reduced access time. However, as you point out, the Raptors are now significantly slower than more modern 7200rpm drives in transferring large files, which may be a more important factor for many people these days.
I have directly reviewed the Raptor vs. newer 7200 rpm drives and yes you are 100% correct that they get completely smashed in high sustained transfer function. Even installation times for software was increased 30% with a drive like the Seagate 7200.11. And now you do actually point out the trade off that some people want access time and some people want STR. Horsepower or Torque? Nice analogy huh?? lol



Dom

[tuskenraider]

^^^^Amen. Amazing the same misinformation just goes round and round here.

[noegruts]

So, I disagree with your statement that faster seek/access does not correlate to quicker everyday tasks.

If you could quote my statement where I said that faster seek/access does not correlate to quicker everyday tasks, I'd appreciate it.

I specifically said:

Isn't it more important how quickly the computer performs the tasks you want it to perform?

I really don't think anybody could seriously disagree with that. My main point that nobody seems to actually read is that the best setup for an individual depends upon the type of tasks the individual wants the computer to do. Any advice that says that "configuration X is always best" is going to be flawed.

[Yahonmaizosz]

I really don't think anybody could seriously disagree with that. My main point that nobody seems to actually read is that the best setup for an individual depends upon the type of tasks the individual wants the computer to do. Any advice that says that "configuration X is always best" is going to be flawed.

Come to think of it, I agree with Neogruts opinion. The best setup is the one that best meets the need of an individual. Everyone has different needs, thus needing different setups.:)

[dominick32]

If you could quote my statement where I said that faster seek/access does not correlate to quicker everyday tasks, I'd appreciate it.

I specifically said:



I really don't think anybody could seriously disagree with that. My main point that nobody seems to actually read is that the best setup for an individual depends upon the type of tasks the individual wants the computer to do. Any advice that says that "configuration X is always best" is going to be flawed.

Hey man, if you re-read my quote you will see that we are pretty much agreeing with eachother 100%. I did read "who cares how fast windows boots?" from your initial paragraph. I was just making the statement that windows boot does indeed correlate to app/game/software pagefile access and speed. Although not entirely, for the most part it is all based on random drive access/seek. But if you re-read my two responses you will see that I was indeed agreeing with you entirely. It is ultimately up to the end user to decide what type of performance he/she needs. No one setup is better than the other setup, it is entirely up to what kind of performance spec the end user is after.

Dom

[aoch88]

Thanks everyone and to dominick (great site you have there and it helped me a lot) :) In conclusion if we want fast Windows, games, programs load up then Raptor is the way to go (better still if it's in RAID-0).

I'd like to try those SSD's out but the price is crazy for now. I'm still thinking if I should get 2 x 74GB Raptors and have them in RAID0. That alone would cost around 300 bucks!

[Jon]

If you are after a faster windows boot speed consider running a faster single drive. ie: WD Raptor 74 or 150. The boot speed gains from Raid 0 using a 7200 rpm hdd are going to be minimal, if anything. Read my review on the barracuda in here (you can find the raid 0 article at the end of the single drive article: http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/barracuda

A single raptor is generally faster at booting "things" when compared to a Raid 0-7200rpm setup.

Hope this helps a bit.



The thing is that windows boot correlates to application boot which correlates to drive seek/access time. Why do newer SSD's generally feel like they blow the doors off standard 7200/10k mechanicals when they sometimes have slower STR's? Because the access time of the drive is phenomenal. I think you are mistaking to mention about the main trade off here. Some people that work with larger files (video/graphic editing, etc.)need a drive with higher STR's, and some people like gamers want a drive with instantaneous OS/APP/GAME boot speed. So, I disagree with your statement that faster seek/access does not correlate to quicker everyday tasks.


I have directly reviewed the Raptor vs. newer 7200 rpm drives and yes you are 100% correct that they get completely smashed in high sustained transfer function. Even installation times for software was increased 30% with a drive like the Seagate 7200.11. And now you do actually point out the trade off that some people want access time and some people want STR. Horsepower or Torque? Nice analogy huh?? lol



Dom

+1

I use a 74GB Raptor for my OS and use the 3x160GB RAID 0 array for my encoding.

Faster access/lower latency for the OS, where it is needed - high throughput for mux/demux operations where it is needed.

For those wanting to use an array for both OS and whatever - you're going to have to weigh your trade-offs.

[aoch88]

I'd say you won't go wrong with 2 RAptors in RAID-0 be it for OS, games or encoding?

[Mr.Guvernment]

you can go wrong in the wallter for the performance you may get vs other options.

price vs performance... if cost is no issues then ya raid some raptors.

[noegruts]

if cost is no issues then ya raid some raptors.

Cost isn't the only factor. Raptors are also much louder than most 7200rpm drives and still aren't available in anything bigger than 150GB. Those two factors may be important for some people.

[fritzman]

Thanks everyone and to dominick (great site you have there and it helped me a lot) :) In conclusion if we want fast Windows, games, programs load up then Raptor is the way to go (better still if it's in RAID-0).

I'd like to try those SSD's out but the price is crazy for now. I'm still thinking if I should get 2 x 74GB Raptors and have them in RAID0. That alone would cost around 300 bucks!

If there is any way you can posibly go to 150 Raptors... I would encourage it.

The trend seems to be... the larger the platter... the greater the gains.

+++edit... you need to whip over to the classifieds (storage) and buy Hardass's SAS setup for your O/S drives... $350 I think for the controller and 2 x 15k 36Gb drives. That would be brilliant for what you are doing, and then you could have your large drive(s) for data, etc.

He's posted a s/s here of two Raptor 150's...

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5477294&postcount=5

and here of the two SAS drives.... (the top s/s)

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5478003&postcount=6

That would be so great for what you are wanting to do.

[Yahonmaizosz]

I'd say you won't go wrong with 2 RAptors in RAID-0 be it for OS, games or encoding?

I have 3x150GB RAPTOR in RAID 0. It works fast and superb for all of my applications.:)

[aoch88]

Thanks guys and well yes, Raptors in RAID is certainly sweet but I thought of only 74GB x 2 for my boot partition and games. The rest of the data, backup stuffs would stay in a huge 500GB non RAID.

[tuskenraider]

Thanks guys and well yes, Raptors in RAID is certainly sweet but I thought of only 74GB x 2 for my boot partition and games. The rest of the data, backup stuffs would stay in a huge 500GB non RAID.Nothing wrong with that. You could just stay with a single Raptor and you'll be just as quick as an OS/app drive.

[aoch88]

Does anyone knows how big is the difference between the old 74GB 8MB cache Raptor vs the new 74GB 16MB cache Raptor? If performance is about the same, I'd be going for the 8MB version which is a lot cheaper.

[MadMan007]

Get the 16MB version unless it's like a 2x difference or...well what's the difference ?

Speaking of number of drives in an array, for RAID0 the major difference is STR and seek times don't change much?

[Mr.Guvernment]

not sure why above i thought 15k RPM on the raptor, been working with too many SCSI drives lately :)

[aoch88]

If the performance doesn't differ a lot, I'd rather get the 8MB version and save the $$$ for something else.

[noegruts]

Speaking of number of drives in an array, for RAID0 the major difference is STR and seek times don't change much?

Correct.

[aoch88]

Btw, there's basic disk and dynamic disk under Windows Disk Management. What should I create? I believe basic disk should be more useful since I can still see it when I boot up from DOS?