Best Drives for Raid 0

[Kasm]

I am looking to get two or three drives that I can put in Raid 0 for the quickest application load times and such. I wish I could get some mtrons but I can't afford them :(

So what drives do you recommend excluding >$200 drives? Or would a velociraptor out perform raid 0?

[thideras]

What are you going to be doing most? If it is games, RAID will hurt you since it increases access times (seek times), this is what will load a game faster.

[Kasm]

Yeah, I was thinking mainly of loading games and starting up windows. Raid has that big of an effect on seek times that it renders the double read speed useless?

I am assuming mtrons in raid 0 are still fast enough not to cause bad access times.

So if you had $400 to spend on a storage solution for fastest load times what you would do?

[thideras]

Yeah, I was thinking mainly of loading games and starting up windows. Raid has that big of an effect on seek times that is renders the double reading speed useless?Well, when loading Windows and games, your throughput is useless since the files are scattered throughout the drive, so it has to "seek" for them. Not sure why there is a slowdown for seek when in RAID, maybe someone can explain that for me.

I am assume mtrons in raid 0 are still fast enough not to cause bad access times.I've seen many more than 2 in RAID0 and still have amazing seek times (>0.3ms)

So if you had $400 to spend on a storage solution for fastest load times what you would do?If I couldn't put it in anything but storage, I'd do a regular raptor (around 120-130 now) and 3 500gig drives in a RAID5 for storage.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073

[Kasm]

Thanks for your help. But just to get your final opinion, I don't need any storage, I have a server that contains all my media and important files. So that pretty much means a velociraptor would prolly be the best bet if I was using that money for pure speed?

[Stilletto]

Thanks for your help. But just to get your final opinion, I don't need any storage, I have a server that contains all my media and important files. So that pretty much means a velociraptor would prolly be the best bet if I was using that money for pure speed?

A velociraptor is likely going to be faster than any two drives in raid0. For speed, it is your best choice right now. For space, it is not so hot:beer:

[thideras]

Thanks for your help. But just to get your final opinion, I don't need any storage, I have a server that contains all my media and important files. So that pretty much means a velociraptor would prolly be the best bet if I was using that money for pure speed?If this is for a purely speed based drive setup, I'd vote the velociraptor or wait until SSD comes down, it isn't too far out of your price range ;)

[Stilletto]

And also, if you have an ICHR9 or 10, you may have some compatibility problems with the velociraptor.....:eek:

[Recursion]

Its not true at all that seek times are worse in raid 0. They are actually mush faster than any single drive.

[thideras]

Its not true at all that seek times are worse in raid 0. They are actually mush faster than any single drive.If you are doing a straight RAID0, it is slower. If you RAID0 and partition it (read: matrix raid), then it would be better. Since the OP didn't specify what motherboard and what he will use to RAID them, I made the assumption that he is talking about RAID0'ing the whole drive.

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5490687&postcount=4

[Recursion]

I know for a fact that raid 0 creates huge improvement. With no other setup could you install windows with a fill ntfs format in under 8 minutes. In no other setup could you have a complete os boot of windows xp in under 9 seconds.

My raptors in raid 0 are a blessing, I have tried other recommended drives with nothing except scsi that competed.

[Malpine Walis]

First off:

Please do not use RAID level 0

Sure, you do get a good bit of speed from that configuration but at a potential large cost. Any failure at all and your whole array will just up and disappear. Gone and not coming back. Perhaps if you pop $2,000 on a data recovery firm but only a business would do that and no business would ever trust critical data to RAID level 0 in the first place.

I am looking to get two or three drives that I can put in Raid 0 for the quickest application load times and such. I wish I could get some mtrons but I can't afford them.

Well, if you are looking at getting three drives, then you can go for RAID level 5. You will get the exact same amount of storage space as two drives in RAID level 0 but it will be a bit faster than a level 0 array and a level 5 array can potentially be rebuilt after a drive failure just by shutting down, replacing the drive and starting up again. The process takes quite a bit of time, so it is best to restart just before you go to bed and let it run overnight.

So if you had $400 to spend on a storage solution for fastest load times what you would do?

Honestly, if the goal is to get a fast array for $400, you can get four of these bad boys and go for RAID level 1+0:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148294

Briefly, that array is going to be as fast as your level 0 array but with two extra drives for fault tolerance. They have a 1,200,000 hour MBTF, so it is really not very likely that they will fail on you pretty much ever (no guarantee on user error dumping your array though). And you will have a terabyte of space to work with. Basically, that is well over 200 standard DVDs.

[MadMan007]

He's already said he has a server for file storage and doesn't need space on the PC he's asking about, he could even do backups of his RAID0 if needed. It would help if people read the thread before posting :) Single drive a Velociraptor would be best, otherwise a RAID0 of some WD6400AAKS would probably be fastest or a RAID0 of older Raptors but those wouldn't be a smart buy new, just used.

[Kasm]

Thanks for all the responses. As madman007 said I have a server with all my media so I am not worried about losing any data on this computer. I am looking only for speed. I read up on intel matrix raid and that seems to be the way I might go. You think matrix raid will be faster than a velociraptor in terms of seek and transfer speed?

[tuskenraider]

Buy the VelociRaptor and partition off a small space if you must. /Thread

[Malpine Walis]

Thanks for all the responses. As madman007 said I have a server with all my media so I am not worried about losing any data on this computer. I am looking only for speed. I read up on intel matrix raid and that seems to be the way I might go. You think matrix raid will be faster than a velociraptor in terms of seek and transfer speed?

Well yah, believe it or not, I did see that you have a file server. I just chose to ignore that because you gave us a fairly specific wish list and I worked around that. So let me do a breakdown on some of your options and see what works:

Velociraptor: Yes, they are fast. They also are currently running $300.00 at newegg. So you will not be running those in any RAID level.

SCSI: I k now that nobody mentioned that just yet but that is the fastest way to build a RAID array bar none. The cheapest SCSI drives on newegg are over you $400.00 price point for the system, so again, that is off the table even for a single drive.

So you are looking at some flavor of RAID. But tell me one thing:

What part of “I have a file server” am I supposed to read as “And I refuse to consider any option apart from level 0 on no particular grounds”?

Don't bother answering that. It was specifically worded to demonstrate a point. Even if you have a file server, there is no reason why you cannot consider options that are “server like” in nature. What matters most should be what will meet your needs. Hang the whole concept of having a server up on a high hook if another flavor of RAID will do what you are looking for.

So let's get back to your options.

RAID level 5: Beats the poo out of level 0 for reads and is about the same for writes.

RAID level 0+1: About the same as level 0 for reads but faster for writes.

So if the only thing that you want is raw speed, you really should consider those RAID levels as well.

Now mind you, they also both offer some reliability that level 0 does not offer you so you could consider that to be a freebie. So, this is mainly for a gaming box right? Remember that if your level 0 array ever does go poof, it will do so faster than you can get your last save files onto a thumb drive. Is there something wrong with that? No? I did not think so.

Against that, if you really must go for level 0, would you at least look at the Seagate drive that I linked you to last night?

Actually, it has twice the cache of a velociraptor (32MB vs 16 MB)
It has lower latency than a velociraptor (4.16 vs 5.50)
The seek time does take a very small hit (gotta be honest here)
The transfer to the buffer is almost exactly the same and the transfer to RAM is identical.
It is in your price range, actually it is half what you were planning on spending.

So would you mind having a drive that is clearly superior to a velociraptor in three out of the four specs that actually matter, holds about 40% more data and costs 33% of a velociraptor?

Really, you can buy those drives and go for level 0, spend half as much as you had in mind and get the same performance as drives that you cannot afford. You can spend more than that but less than you had planned on and have file server level reliability.

I will tell you what I would do. In my case, I don't have a file server but I am going to use four of those on my next box for a TB level 0+1 array. In your case, I would recommend that you consider splitting the difference and going for level 5. The advantage to you is that you spend less money than you had planned on, get faster load times and improved reliability.

[tuskenraider]

Actually, it has twice the cache of a velociraptor (32MB vs 16 MB)
It has lower latency than a velociraptor (4.16 vs 5.50)
The seek time does take a very small hit (gotta be honest here)
The transfer to the buffer is almost exactly the same and the transfer to RAM is identical.
It is in your price range, actually it is half what you were planning on spending.

So would you mind having a drive that is clearly superior to a velociraptor in three out of the four specs that actually matter, holds about 40% more data and costs 33% of a velociraptor?

Really, you can buy those drives and go for level 0, spend half as much as you had in mind and get the same performance as drives that you cannot afford. Specs give an idea of performance, but you clearly have skewed the importance of them and left others out. STR improvements with RAID0 with 7200rpm drives will be no match for a VelociRaptor for the OP's uses. Good to know WD just released a clunker and Seagate still has a performance champ. :screwy:

Obligatory links, but I say put 'em both in a both PC and pull out the stopwatch. The Seagate will be crushed.

http://www.storagereview.com/WD3000BLFS.sr?page=0%2C0

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3291

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14964

[Recursion]

Rin 2 raptors in raid 0, just for the OS and then buy storage drives.

[noegruts]

RAID level 5: Beats the poo out of level 0 for reads and is about the same for writes.

The amount of nonsense that is presented on this board as fact is truly mind blowing.

[thideras]

The amount of nonsense that is presented on this board as fact is truly mind blowing.I was thinking so also. My 5 drive RAID5 gets around 80mb/sec read speeds in the server >.>

[Maverick0984]

I was thinking so also. My 5 drive RAID5 gets around 80mb/sec read speeds in the server >.>

It vastly depends on the type of RAID5 setup...Mine gets over 300MB/s, heh.

Chipset used...Software/Hardware...# of drives all play large roles. Stating "RAID5" and encompassing all setups is grossly inaccurate and deceiving.

[MadMan007]

Maybe a true hardware RAID5 would beat a software or southbridge RAID0 but yea that line is a load of bunk otherwise.

[Maverick0984]

Maybe a true hardware RAID5 would beat a software or southbridge RAID0 but yea that line is a load of bunk otherwise.

Hardware raid would surely be out of the OP price range as well, I just wanted to make sure the difference was brought to attention in my previous post. RAID5 is one of the most effected RAID levels by software/hardware implementations.

[thideras]

Hardware raid would surely be out of the OP price range as well, I just wanted to make sure the difference was brought to attention in my previous post. RAID5 is one of the most effected RAID levels by software/hardware implementations.This I did not know, thanks for the info! :beer:

[MadMan007]

Anyway back to the OPs real original question which actually excludes v-Raptors since he says 'no >$200 drives,' he could do two regular Raptors or given that RIAD0 primarily increases STR just looking through reviews it seems that the best setup would be 2 WD6400AAKS, $95 each shipped at Newegg. If partitioned or Matrix'd they would give good seek times as well.

[tuskenraider]

Yeah, I was thinking mainly of loading games and starting up windows. Raid has that big of an effect on seek times that it renders the double read speed useless?

I am assuming mtrons in raid 0 are still fast enough not to cause bad access times.

So if you had $400 to spend on a storage solution for fastest load times what you would do?
I don't think the discussion got out of line. Like many people considering RAID because they read the (over)hype, pointing someone to potentially better options can be helpful. Unlike Matrix RAID users who think it's the answer to everthing...........;)

[Hookem]

Here is what a couple of WD640AAKS's in RAID-0 do...No Matrix slice on a box using the IP35-Pro with the onboard ICH9C raid contoller.

I aint gonna put my 2 cents in on your paticular application.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee89/charlietee/Picture007.jpg

[Malpine Walis]

Specs give an idea of performance, but you clearly have skewed the importance of them and left others out. STR improvements with RAID0 with 7200rpm drives will be no match for a VelociRaptor for the OP's uses. Good to know WD just released a clunker and Seagate still has a performance champ. :screwy:

OK, I will bite: Tell me where I said that a Vraptor is a clunker.

Anyway back to the OPs real original question which actually excludes v-Raptors since he says 'no >$200 drives,'

Thank you very much. That comment was fully on point and relevant to this thread.

The OP has given us certain guidelines within which we need to stay. At least you are suggesting a couple of other drives to look at. That is actually what the OP asked for. Now he has choices that he did not before. Heck but he could even consider doing level 0 with the seagate drive, although I still can't recommend that.

I don't think the discussion got out of line. Like many people considering RAID because they read the (over)hype, pointing someone to potentially better options can be helpful. Unlike Matrix RAID users who think it's the answer to everthing...........;)

Yah really, I don't doubt that there are people who have built six drive level 0 arrays where games load faster than one can double click on the shortcut. Again, while such configurations are useful to some people, there is no one correct solution for everybody. Here we have the OP saying that whatever we suggest has to come in under $400. So tell me what is the answer?

[Codeman05]

I have run virtually every raid level, through a multitude of applications (server, desktop, etc), so I feel I have decent experience on the subject.
So I guess here is my two cents.

If you are only looking for speed and likely only installing an O/S and games on the array...and it sounds like that's your plan...I would certainly say go RAID 0. If a drive dies, oh no, you lost your save games...not the end of the world. However, do not go RAID 0 if you are storing critical data. Sometimes people come down a bit hard on RAID 0, as with everything else, it all depends on what your going to do with it.

Now, someone else suggested Raid 5...I would not recommend raid 5 on a gaming rig unless you are going to buy a TRUE hardware raid card, as your cpu will be doing the parity bit calculations. While not as big of a factor as it used to be, I still feel that it is a noticeable difference and for a desktop/gaming only array...why give up the clock cycles. Hardware raid cards aren't cheap, so again, not good for your application imo.

Raid 10 would be the best option of speed and redundancy, I've migrated several of our raid 5 servers to this now that drives are getting to be cheap. However again, with your budget, not likely a good solution for you (requires 4 drives min).



Conclusion:
I would recommend the following:
1) Either two of the cheaper 16mb cache Raptors in raid 0. (I've had mine in raid for 3 years 24/7 with no failure and they are smoking fast)
2) OR a single velociraptor.

The velociraptor will be slightly slower then two old style raptors in raid 0...however the difference isn't nearly as large as it is with some other drives, and you can always raid it up as well later down the road. Of course, you could just hold off for solid state to get cheaper and more reliable...but I don't think anyone knows when that will be.

[tuskenraider]

Here is what a couple of WD640AAKS's in RAID-0 do...No Matrix slice on a box using the IP35-Pro with the onboard ICH9C raid contoller.
We have benchmarks in here like herpes, how does posting yet another, that you've posted multiple times I'm sure, along with others who own the same drive(s), help anybody? What should we be comparing it with? What do those specs mean to someone hoping for better gaming performance?

OK, I will bite: Tell me where I said that a Vraptor is a clunker.I've already quoted it. You spec'd out the two drives, added your flawed analysis, and lo and behold, the Seagate seems to be the winner, when in fact, it is nowhere close. That WD released a new drive up to 30% faster than the old Raptor(which is a better overall performer than the Seagate you link) and still can't best the Seagate, I would reason to be a "clunker". You would consider such a release a success?........No need to respond, it's retorical.

[Malpine Walis]

I have run virtually every raid level, through a multitude of applications (server, desktop, etc), so I feel I have decent experience on the subject.
So I guess here is my two cents.

Wow, thank you for posting an opportunity that actually tempts rational discussion. Something this thread is noticeably lacking in. But anyway...

If you are only looking for speed and likely only installing an O/S and games on the array...and it sounds like that's your plan...I would certainly say go RAID 0. If a drive dies, oh no, you lost your save games...not the end of the world. However, do not go RAID 0 if you are storing critical data. Sometimes people come down a bit hard on RAID 0, as with everything else, it all depends on what your going to do with it.

Agreed in that storing critical data on level 0 is just asking for trouble. And of course, if you place absolutely no value on your data or your time, then level 0 is fine. Actually, it would be kind of tempting to install linux on a level 0 array with many drives. Get it started and see if it can finish before I can get back from the kitchen to get a cup of coffee. That wold of course be a stunt worthy of youtube but really would not have much point once the job was done (apart from the obviousness of having such an array.

Now, someone else suggested Raid 5...I would not recommend raid 5 on a gaming rig unless you are going to buy a TRUE hardware raid card, as your cpu will be doing the parity bit calculations. While not as big of a factor as it used to be, I still feel that it is a noticeable difference and for a desktop/gaming only array...why give up the clock cycles. Hardware raid cards aren't cheap, so again, not good for your application imo.

Yah, that would be me. However, it depends on the context that we are talking about. Everyone has different needs and different configurations will sever different people. If you are looking to play Crysis, then the smallish bit of overhead to implementing level 5 in software might shave one or two FPS off the top of your game. However, if you are looking to play TF2 or any of the other source engine games, the overhead will not really matter with today's procs. Better value can be had in not having to deal with the somewhat ponderous load times.

As far as hardware RAID cards, the OP did specify a price of $400 max. So he only has room for drives no matter what. Hardware cards are off the table and really only deserve that much of a passing mention.

Raid 10 would be the best option of speed and redundancy, I've migrated several of our raid 5 servers to this now that drives are getting to be cheap. However again, with your budget, not likely a good solution for you (requires 4 drives min).

Well yah, level 0+1 would be the best balance of the two factors. However, in order to make that happen in the OP's budget, he would need to have a drive that was both good and cheap. Now where might we find something like that? Hmm, I can only wonder :confused: (please ignore the sarcasm, it is certainly not directed at you).

Conclusion:
I would recommend the following:
1) Either two of the cheaper 16mb cache Raptors in raid 0. (I've had mine in raid for 3 years 24/7 with no failure and they are smoking fast)
2) OR a single velociraptor.

The velociraptor will be slightly slower then two old style raptors in raid 0...however the difference isn't nearly as large as it is with some other drives, and you can always raid it up as well later down the road. Of course, you could just hold off for solid state to get cheaper and more reliable...but I don't think anyone knows when that will be.

And there you go. We now have a third idea for the OP to consider. That would mean that the silly benchmark for this thread is 10% actual suggestions, 5% other actual discussion and 85%, well I don't know the words to describe the 85% but it was clearly not intended to help the OP out.

[Codeman05]

so were exactly do I fall in on that 100%? I am somewhat confused on the last paragraph.
Btw, for the record, off topic or not, I just wanted to clarify some of the "advice" on arrays. I think we are in agreement for the most part Walis

[Malpine Walis]

We have benchmarks in here like herpes, how does posting yet another, that you've posted multiple times I'm sure, along with others who own the same drive(s), help anybody? What should we be comparing it with? What do those specs mean to someone hoping for better gaming performance?

On that point, I absolutely have to agree with you. The screen cap is totally lacking in any context that allows us to determine the relevancy to the thread. That and the supporting text pretty much reads as “here is a screen cap, do with it as you will”. Pretty much, it comes off as just dumping on the thread to no apparent purpose.

So what are we expected to do with that exactly? :screwy::screwy::screwy:

I've already quoted it. You spec'd out the two drives, added your flawed analysis, and lo and behold, the Seagate seems to be the winner, when in fact, it is nowhere close. That WD released a new drive up to 30% faster than the old Raptor(which is a better overall performer than the Seagate you link) and still can't best the Seagate, I would reason to be a "clunker". You would consider such a release a success?........No need to respond, it's retorical.

You may call it rhetorical but I will address it anyway. I did read the spec sheets and post those numbers that appeared in both. That much is true. However, at no time did I make any claim that the Seagate was better or that the vraptor was worse.

Remember that the OP made it clear in the first post that he wanted to know what he could do for under $400 and hopefully with three drives. That sets his maximum price at $133/drive. So I found him a $100 drive that is actually quite good for that price.

I invite you to link to an article that reviews the Seagate drive in the context of other drives in that specific price range. If you do that comparison, I believe that you will find that it is in fact quite a nice drive for what it is.

That it does have numbers that approach those of the vraptor is of little actual importance. That it might meet the needs of the OP is of quite some importance. Although I will take the time to note that in the techreview.com article that you linked us to, the Seagate drive proved to be at least equal or in some cases rather better than a vraptor in 17 of 65 benchmarks. Granted 17/65 is hardly stellar but it does tell us something about the possibility of finding a drive that is both good and cheap.

[Malpine Walis]

so were exactly do I fall in on that 100%? I am somewhat confused on the last paragraph.

Well, to get past the confusion, you made some actual specific recommendations. So you are in the 10% slice of this particular pie. I was going on the number of posts. When I made that post, we were at 30 posts and you were the third person to make a specific suggestion that the OP might actually benefit from.

Btw, for the record, off topic or not, I just wanted to clarify some of the "advice" on arrays. I think we are in agreement for the most part Walis

Well thank you, I think. Although I certainly do not expect people to just automatically agree with me on stuff. If there is one thing that I have learned in my 45 years, it would be that when people just rubber stamp what I say, that deprives me of some chance to learn from others.

But yah, there is a “different strokes for different folks” thing to this matter. In my case, I am thinking of putting level 0+1 in my next desktop. Some would call that squashing bugs with a sledge hammer. However, it also happens that I have two 15 amp breakers in my condo. While one does not need a monster of a PSU for a file server, it remains that extra hard drives in a desktop does represent an economy that I sorely need.

[science man]

I am looking to get two or three drives that I can put in Raid 0 for the quickest application load times and such. I wish I could get some mtrons but I can't afford them :(

So what drives do you recommend excluding >$200 drives? Or would a velociraptor out perform raid 0?

this (http://shop3.frys.com/product/5533000?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG)

[thideras]

this (http://shop3.frys.com/product/5533000?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG)...that is an external drive. He is looking for something internal >.>

That thing would be extremely slow.

[Malpine Walis]

Hey there Oooze, the fact is that the OP asked us for a plan that holds to a really tight budget. In fact, it is so tight that he is simply put not going to have a RAID array made with the drive that makes the fanbois tight in the jeans.

So some people want to see him use a single one of those drives, pretty much on the grounds that at least with one, you can pop a small boner.

For myself, I am trying to point out that the drive that some people attach epeen value to is pretty much the equivalent of requiring the drives in an array to be painted cash green. Well, if that goes with the rest of your color scheme, fine but it is not "all this and more" as far as performance goes.

[tuskenraider]

I did read the spec sheets and post those numbers that appeared in both. That much is true. However, at no time did I make any claim that the Seagate was better or that the vraptor was worse.
Sorry, I guess the statements below read differently to me.........
So would you mind having a drive that is clearly superior to a velociraptor in three out of the four specs that actually matter, holds about 40% more data and costs 33% of a velociraptor?

Really, you can buy those drives and go for level 0, spend half as much as you had in mind and get the same performance as drives that you cannot afford.


Remember that the OP made it clear in the first post that he wanted to know what he could do for under $400 and hopefully with three drives. That sets his maximum price at $133/drive. So I found him a $100 drive that is actually quite good for that price.And like many threads, the OP added more details(third post) of what he is expecting out of his RAID use, which changes the advice that may be given. So under $400 the VelociRaptor is the going to give the OP the best performance for his use. Actually it's the best performing desktop drive period, so I guess if I owned one I'd pop a boner and enjoy my epeen. Hate it for it's high cost, doesn't change the facts.


I invite you to link to an article that reviews the Seagate drive in the context of other drives in that specific price range. If you do that comparison, I believe that you will find that it is in fact quite a nice drive for what it is.I think a link or two already provided shows the WD 320GB AAKS series to be a better option than the Seagate. Google can show you more.


That it does have numbers that approach those of the vraptor is of little actual importance. That it might meet the needs of the OP is of quite some importance. Although I will take the time to note that in the techreview.com article that you linked us to, the Seagate drive proved to be at least equal or in some cases rather better than a vraptor in 17 of 65 benchmarks. Granted 17/65 is hardly stellar but it does tell us something about the possibility of finding a drive that is both good and cheap.All the benchmarks that actually matter to the OP(game load, boot times) favor the VR by large margins. I didn't check others that the Seagate may have bested the VR in. Idle noise and heat?

[Malpine Walis]

Too bad that you did not look up heat and noise then because those are part of where the Seagate drive almost exactly matches the VR.

However, the Samsung Spin Point drives also deserve a good looking at as well. They are also reasonably priced high performance drives. In fact, they have a slight edge in the cost per GB. You can get the 500GB model for only $80.