RAID 0 vs Velociraptor

[JoshOohAh]

Hello, I need a new hard drive and I was debating between 2 500GB Western Digital Caviar Black in RAID 0 (don't bother talking me out of it I don't have many important files worth being backed up) or getting 1 Western Digital VelociRaptor 150 GB and save up for a few months to get another one of these and run them in RAID 0.

Some info you should know:

-The 500gb hard drives is about $50-60 cheaper.
-I will be purchasing a SSD in the near future to use as a boot drive with some programs
-I am a gamer if that accounts for much

I guess what it comes down to is if the VelociRaptor is that much better than the WD Caviar Black.

My computer specs are in my Signature if that could also mean something

Thanks

[Mr Alpha]

I would say neither. Both 10k rpm raptors and RAID 0 hard drive arrays are band-aid solution for the IO problems that SSD fix, so in a computer with and SSD both the Velociraptor or the Caviar Black RAID 0 arrays would be a waste. They would both pale in comparison to the SSD.

What I would recommend is that you skip both the RAID 0 array and the Raptor and get a big, cheap hard drive instead. Then spends the extra money on getting a bigger, better SSD.

[JoshOohAh]

I would say neither. Both 10k rpm raptors and RAID 0 hard drive arrays are band-aid solution for the IO problems that SSD fix, so in a computer with and SSD both the Velociraptor or the Caviar Black RAID 0 arrays would be a waste. They would both pale in comparison to the SSD.

What I would recommend is that you skip both the RAID 0 array and the Raptor and get a big, cheap hard drive instead. Then spends the extra money on getting a bigger, better SSD.

I do plan on getting and SSD in the future but right now they are way to over priced for what you get.

[Mr Alpha]

If you are looking at bang-for-the-buck then the Raptors don't make any sense either. They used to be worth their price premium in because they were the fastest you could get (outside of enterprise 15k stuff); the king of the hill. Just as getting the fastest graphics card or processor comes with a price premium much bigger than their performance advantage, the Raptors are priced much higher than their relative performance would suggest. In a world with SSDs the Raptors just aren't worth the cost anymore. A Raptor cut the access time in half compared to a normal hard drive, roughly. The access time of an SSD is a hundred times lower.

For a gamer RAID 0 isn't worth it either. You'll cut like half a second off a thirty second level load time. You won't even notice it without a stopwatch. Wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up the RAID array. For comparison a Raptor might cut a second or two off that time while, in a best case scenario, and SSD can halve it.

My recommendation still stands just get a good normal hard drive, and sit down and wait for the SSDs to go down in price.

[Joeteck]

I would look into getting two 640gig Blacks! Then short stroke them for speed!

[JoshOohAh]

If you are looking at bang-for-the-buck then the Raptors don't make any sense either. They used to be worth their price premium in because they were the fastest you could get (outside of enterprise 15k stuff); the king of the hill. Just as getting the fastest graphics card or processor comes with a price premium much bigger than their performance advantage, the Raptors are priced much higher than their relative performance would suggest. In a world with SSDs the Raptors just aren't worth the cost anymore. A Raptor cut the access time in half compared to a normal hard drive, roughly. The access time of an SSD is a hundred times lower.

For a gamer RAID 0 isn't worth it either. You'll cut like half a second off a thirty second level load time. You won't even notice it without a stopwatch. Wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up the RAID array. For comparison a Raptor might cut a second or two off that time while, in a best case scenario, and SSD can halve it.

My recommendation still stands just get a good normal hard drive, and sit down and wait for the SSDs to go down in price.

From what I heard RAID 0 is very fast in comparison to a regular good hard drive. Mind you the hard drives I'm getting are supposed to be very good ones. Your numbers seem inaccurate compared to what I have heard from other people.

Trust me my eyes are gazing the OCZ Vertex which are calling my name but I am just holding off.

[JoshOohAh]

I would look into getting two 640gig Blacks! Then short stroke them for speed!

What is short stroking? I have never had that explained to me.

[lugnat]

If you are looking at bang-for-the-buck then the Raptors don't make any sense either. They used to be worth their price premium in because they were the fastest you could get (outside of enterprise 15k stuff); the king of the hill. Just as getting the fastest graphics card or processor comes with a price premium much bigger than their performance advantage, the Raptors are priced much higher than their relative performance would suggest. In a world with SSDs the Raptors just aren't worth the cost anymore. A Raptor cut the access time in half compared to a normal hard drive, roughly. The access time of an SSD is a hundred times lower.

For a gamer RAID 0 isn't worth it either. You'll cut like half a second off a thirty second level load time. You won't even notice it without a stopwatch. Wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up the RAID array. For comparison a Raptor might cut a second or two off that time while, in a best case scenario, and SSD can halve it.

My recommendation still stands just get a good normal hard drive, and sit down and wait for the SSDs to go down in price.


Although you are correct SSD's are the way to go I have 2 velociraptors in Raid 0 and I cut a lot more off than 1 second off load times.
For instance FEAR 2 on my 500 gig WD 32 meg cache loads it in about 25 to 28 seconds.. While my raid 0 (2 raptors) load in less than 10 seconds (can upload the video for proof!)

Do what you want to do though!

What you read though may be old! As the veloscirapttors (can never spell it right lol) are really overpriced as well per performance.
Will you be using hardware raid or software raid.. Now if your using hardware raid (controller card) then it would be worth it. But if your just using your motherboards onboard raid that makes it less desirable!

Short stroking is just that. Shortening your hard drives capacity and not using the rest.. Like say you get a 500 giger and only format 200 gigs of it and leave the rest alone.. Alas is short stroking..

And Raid 0 with software raid is not "very fast: in comparison.. lets say you get about 60mbs from a new hard drive.. In raid with the same hard drive you will get about 80 to 100 in real life apps not just in benchmarks.. Benchamarks will give you higher score but yo wont notice the difference in Raid 0 with regular drives until you start putting 4 to 6 together!

See my hard drive times in this test.. I should be getting around 400mbs with these raptors but getting no where neart it.. A couple more drives and sure I would get the kid of raid I would really notice in video editing..

TEST (http://pcpitstop.com/betapit/sec.asp?conid=22970810)

[dgb303]

What is short stroking? I have never had that explained to me.

Explainage (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,2157.html)

[Marshmallow64]

I have experience with WD blacks and blues in Raid 0, raptors in raid 0, and now SSD. So here is what I think.

At this very moment in time, there is no reason at all to get velociraptors. The price/performance does not justify getting them when SSDs are out. The SSDs are like 6 times faster than the raptors, but only double in price. Since SSD is out of the question for you, then I would not get the raptor or an SSD.

The WD Blacks actually get the same benchmarks as the Veliciraptors other than access times. But they are the best overall for your situation.

Now for RAID 0, as a gamer it really does not do too much for you and in terms of real world performance I have never really noticed much difference when raiding other than transferring a lot of files.

If I were you I would just get a WD Black 500 GB, or 640 GB and use that until the prices for SSDs goes down which I predict in 2-3 years. Once you upgrade then move that WD Black to a storage drive position.

[JoshOohAh]

Explainage (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,2157.html)

This seems like I'm losing a lot of space. And I need a fair amount of storage for my files.

I have experience with WD blacks and blues in Raid 0, raptors in raid 0, and now SSD. So here is what I think.

At this very moment in time, there is no reason at all to get velociraptors. The price/performance does not justify getting them when SSDs are out. The SSDs are like 6 times faster than the raptors, but only double in price. Since SSD is out of the question for you, then I would not get the raptor or an SSD.

The WD Blacks actually get the same benchmarks as the Veliciraptors other than access times. But they are the best overall for your situation.

Now for RAID 0, as a gamer it really does not do too much for you and in terms of real world performance I have never really noticed much difference when raiding other than transferring a lot of files.

If I were you I would just get a WD Black 500 GB, or 640 GB and use that until the prices for SSDs goes down which I predict in 2-3 years.

I use my computer for things other than gaming though. It's not just about installing and opening games for me. It's about the overall speed of my computer when opening reading and writing other programs. I know in my mind I have it set I want and SSD but until those prices drop won't RAID 0 boost my overall hard drive performance?

[Marshmallow64]

I just took a look at your system specs. It is a hell of a system, your harddrive is what will bottle neck it.

[Marshmallow64]

RAID 0 will boost the overall performance, but I do not think its justified in terms of price to get two drives from scratch just to RAID 0. Seems like you have a good system that will last you a long time, I would highly consider tanking the $350 and getting a 120 gb SSD. It installs everything faster, loads windows faster, and loads games faster.

[JoshOohAh]

I just took a look at your system specs. It is a hell of a system, your harddrive is what will bottle neck it.

My current hard drive is bottle necking it :D That is why a new hard drive is a MUST!

[EarthDog]

I would say neither. Both 10k rpm raptors and RAID 0 hard drive arrays are band-aid solution for the IO problems that SSD fix, so in a computer with and SSD both the Velociraptor or the Caviar Black RAID 0 arrays would be a waste. They would both pale in comparison to the SSD.

What I would recommend is that you skip both the RAID 0 array and the Raptor and get a big, cheap hard drive instead. Then spends the extra money on getting a bigger, better SSD.Depends on people's needs really. I would personally love a R0 array b/c the 60GB SSD I have doesnt allow me to install ALL of my games. If I cant have them on SSD, why not have them on R0 Caviar Blacks????? :cool:

R0 will help with large file reads more than anything as its throughput is huge compared to a single drive. R0 is good for boot times, game loads, and large file manipulation.

[JoshOohAh]

Depends on people's needs really. I would personally love a R0 array b/c the 60GB SSD I have doesnt allow me to install ALL of my games. If I cant have them on SSD, why not have them on R0 Caviar Blacks????? :cool:

Okay some I'm not the only one who has done this? Because everyone here is recommending not running RAID 0 if I'm gaming most of the time.

[Marshmallow64]

Raid 0 does help, but I think in your situation if your buying two new drives from scratch theres no need for it. I feel like you will waste money and regret it, since you will not see a super big difference from the seagate hd you have now.

I would rather get the 150 gb raptor for $150 than 2 wd blacks, unless I need a lot of storage space for games.

[JoshOohAh]

Raid 0 does help, but I think in your situation if your buying two new drives from scratch theres no need for it.

I would rather get the 150 gb raptor for $150 than 2 wd blacks, unless I need a lot of storage space for games.

The issue with that is the WD Blacks are cheaper if I get two 500GB (about $125). Also they don't sell the VRaptor 150gb in Canada under $200. So the Blacks are cheaper. Also from what I've been reading they are about the same speeds when compared to each other if not maybe by a few ms which no human eye can detect. Even that 75$ can go to the SSD foundation.

[Joeteck]

Two 640gig drives in RAID 0, will do the trick. These things are so fast (http://www.overclockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/short-stroking.png), that you can short stroke them @ 200 gig each! And if you want ultimate speed 85gig each! 170gig boot partition! or a 400 gig partition!

[EarthDog]

Okay some I'm not the only one who has done this? Because everyone here is recommending not running RAID 0 if I'm gaming most of the time.Situation dependent (as I said). I have a tiny SSD so I have no choice but to do something else. Thankfully I only currently have COD4 loaded so I dont need to worry about it.

[Marshmallow64]

Ah Canada, then yea probably go with some WD Blacks. I would still save 60 bucks and get just one Black and short stroke it. So thats already $135 for the SSD foundation.

[Joeteck]

I'll link this again!

Check this out! (http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=627589)

[JoshOohAh]

Two 640gig drives in RAID 0, will do the trick. These things are so fast (http://www.overclockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/short-stroking.png), that you can short stroke them @ 200 gig each! And if you want ultimate speed 85gig each! 170gig boot partition! or a 400 gig partition!
170 is a little on the skimp side but if it gives me that much of a performance increase than maybe its worth it. Anyways what software could I use to Short Stroke? Or is it done in Bios?

Ah Canada, then yea probably go with some WD Blacks. I would still save 60 bucks and get just one Black and short stroke it. So thats already $135 for the SSD foundation.

Isn't Short Stroke better with RAID 0? But I do get what your saying $135 is already a 1/3 of the current prices of some SSDs.

[Joeteck]

170 is a little on the skimp side but if it gives me that much of a performance increase than maybe its worth it. Anyways what software could I use to Short Stroke? Or is it done in Bios?Its done in bios.

Check out my article here (http://www.overclockers.com/short-stroke-raid/)

I have two how-to videos there...

[EarthDog]

Short stroking is done by making a partition. Check out Joeteck's article on the front page for a video 'how to'. But it really is only making a small partition prior to install and dumping your OS on their like usual. You can make the partition any size you want, however once you are outside of these "sweet spots" the performance slow degrades on the drive. Generic advice is the smaller partition the better.

[JoshOohAh]

I'll link this again!

Check this out! (http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=627589)

Nice results! But those are with Vraptors. Still amazing

Its done in bios.

Check out my article here (http://www.overclockers.com/short-stroke-raid/)

I have two you-tube video there...

Thanks for article link. Even the video link in the article is helpful although I'm on an Asus board (which I hate the Bios).

[JoshOohAh]

Alright so is it safe that everyone agrees I run 2 WD Caviar Blacks 640 GBs in Raid 0 with Short Stroke at 85 GB each?

[Marshmallow64]

Yea sounds good.

[EarthDog]

So long as you think you can fit your OS/Apps/Games in that partition sure. If not, go bigger.

[JoshOohAh]

So long as you think you can fit your OS/Apps/Games in that partition sure. If not, go bigger.

Yea I just I was thinking about that as well. Maybe ill pitch in the extra $60 and get two 1TBs. Although 170 seems like it would be enough. Considering 50 gbs of games 20 of os 10 of music, 30 of other apps leaving me 60 GBs. Plus I still have my current hard drive to rip movies to and to store files that don't need to be accessed that often.

[EarthDog]

Ehh, I meant for the size of the short stroked drive. Im certain 1.2TB would be enough considering what you listed above. ;)

[freeagent]

RAID 0 will boost the overall performance, but I do not think its justified in terms of price to get two drives from scratch just to RAID 0. Seems like you have a good system that will last you a long time, I would highly consider tanking the $350 and getting a 120 gb SSD. It installs everything faster, loads windows faster, and loads games faster.

Hmm. Well Im not so sure about that.. Yeah SSD's are pretty good, mine is an old gskill, made about this time last year.. So the newer ones about about 100mb/s quicker in transfers, writes about about 50mb/s or so faster give or take a nut hair. But even 3 older Raptor 150s are no slouch. Ok 6.6ms is pretty slow, when you are thinking of ssd speeds of .1ms. But for everything else, they know how to rocknroll. Bigger drives will have bigger space, and probably higher transfer speed, but the bigger ones cannot hold a candle to raptor latency when paired up for some matrix action. I think with my old wd2500ks's i was able to pull 9-9.5ms. Wich as about what the newer, bigger drives are pulling when paired up. They still make me grin, and they do provide some great competition to older ssd's :)

Ahh but then theres the cost.. I got mine used heh.

[JoshOohAh]

Ehh, I meant for the size of the short stroked drive. Im certain 1.2TB would be enough considering what you listed above. ;)

Lol thats what I meant. With the short stroked drives I will have a combined total of 170GBs based on what I listed I will have 60 GBs left over.

[JoshOohAh]

BTW I have an Asus P6TD Deluxe (most specs similar to the P6T Deluxe) motherboard with built in RAID support should I use this on board RAID controller? Or should I purchase one? If so what should I be looking at company and price wise?

EDIT: I checked my mobo user guide and it says I have an Intel ICH10R southbridge controller if that at all helps

[EarthDog]

Use the onboard raid.

[JoshOohAh]

Use the onboard raid.

Thanks for conformation on that. I was just researching and a lot of people say that onboard RAID controllers aren't the greatest. I just wanted to make sure it was good in my case.

[Joeteck]

Alright so is it safe that everyone agrees I run 2 WD Caviar Blacks 640 GBs in Raid 0 with Short Stroke at 85 GB each?

You can do up to 200 gig each if you want! Those drives kick butt!

[jason4207]

The onboard RAID is fine for RAID0 or RAID1...there isn't anything to calculate and so very little overhead. With RAID5 or 6 you'd want a RAID card. The Intel onboard solutions are actually very good for RAID0 and/or RAID1.

And if you short-stroke the drive to isolate the fastest part of the drives you can still use the remaining space for storage. You can even put the remaining space in a RAID1 array for a little redundancy.

The BIOS you will go into to set up your array(s) is a little different than the BIOS you are used to. After you enable RAID in the BIOS you are used to you then have to reboot and press cntrl-I during boot to open the Matrix RAID BIOS. You can then set up your array(s) as you see fit.

Example:
2x 640GB Blacks
200GB RAID0 array w/ 100GB from each drive
540GB RAID1 array w/ 540GB from each drive

[EarthDog]

Just be sure when you short stroke that the data on the other part of the partition isnt accessed very much. If it is, it essentially defeats the purpose of the SS in the first place.

[Marshmallow64]

Hmm. Well Im not so sure about that.. Yeah SSD's are pretty good, mine is an old gskill, made about this time last year.. So the newer ones about about 100mb/s quicker in transfers, writes about about 50mb/s or so faster give or take a nut hair. But even 3 older Raptor 150s are no slouch. Ok 6.6ms is pretty slow, when you are thinking of ssd speeds of .1ms. But for everything else, they know how to rocknroll. Bigger drives will have bigger space, and probably higher transfer speed, but the bigger ones cannot hold a candle to raptor latency when paired up for some matrix action. I think with my old wd2500ks's i was able to pull 9-9.5ms. Wich as about what the newer, bigger drives are pulling when paired up. They still make me grin, and they do provide some great competition to older ssd's :)

Ahh but then theres the cost.. I got mine used heh.

Yea I know RAID 0 does boost performance I had 2 wd blacks in raid 0, then 2 raptors in raid 0 eariler this year. My main point is if he is starting from scratch with the harddrives, and he plans on getting ssd in the future, he should just get one wd black for now and save his money.

[jason4207]

Just be sure when you short stroke that the data on the other part of the partition isnt accessed very much. If it is, it essentially defeats the purpose of the SS in the first place.

Not entirely. The drives are still plenty fast from beginning to end, but here we are just isolating the faster part from the relatively slower part. You want your OS and programs to have access to the faster part. Even if the storage data on the slower part is accessed often it will still rely on a program from the faster part to utilize it, and that program will load the data it needs into RAM.

Also, if you have a good defrag program it will move files that are used more often to the fastest part of the given array.

[EarthDog]

Note: you can partition and use the remaining drive space for additional storage, but be aware that any time that storage is accessed, you will lose the performance benefits of short stroking. In practice, this works well as during most application use, the storage partition is not frequently accessed.

http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives-storage/609576-short-stroke-why-how.html

If it isnt accessed much or at the same time, no worries. If it is...

[JoshOohAh]

http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives-storage/609576-short-stroke-why-how.html

If it isnt accessed much or at the same time, no worries. If it is...

So it's not recommended I store files on there that need to be accssed while the drives are short stroking? For example if I store my music on the slower parts would opening up a song then defeat the whole purpose of short stroking until I reboot?

Also what should I make the stripe sizes?

[EarthDog]

I cant imagine its going to hurt too much as you are rarely accessing both at the same time. I havent seen any details on how much it slows down, but it makes sense.

It has nothing to do with rebooting or not. If you are using items on both partitions, then it will hinder performance. BUT you are in Raid so Im certain it would still be faster than a single drive.

[JoshOohAh]

I cant imagine its going to hurt too much as you are rarely accessing both at the same time. I havent seen any details on how much it slows down, but it makes sense.

It has nothing to do with rebooting or not. If you are using items on both partitions, then it will hinder performance. BUT you are in Raid so Im certain it would still be faster than a single drive.

That was more of a curious question I will probably use my current drive to store music,videos and things that I don't need to be opened quickly.

Also does the slower part of my drives show up in "My Computer" as a separate drive?

And what size stripe should I run?

[EarthDog]

If its formatted, yes it will show up in My Computer as another drive.

Great thread I found on RAID (stripe size)...: http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/IDE_RAID/RAID_08.htm

[JoshOohAh]

If its formatted, yes it will show up in My Computer as another drive.

Great thread I found on RAID (stripe size)...: http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/IDE_RAID/RAID_08.htm

Nice thread thanks! So I guess I will go with the 64 KB or 16 KB stripe because they gave the best preformance based on those benchmarks. What are the disatvantages to going to small?

[EarthDog]

No idea... this is not my area of expertise. I would say stick with 64kb. When I had R0, thats what I put them on and it was quite a noticeable difference in boot times and game level loads, app loads/installs.

[JoshOohAh]

No idea... this is not my area of expertise. I would say stick with 64kb. When I had R0, thats what I put them on and it was quite a noticeable difference in boot times and game level loads, app loads/installs.

Thats a good enough explanation to me. Plus everwhere I saw on Google most of the links talk about 64 KB which I guess sounds safe.

Thanks again

[Marshmallow64]

Stick with 64 Kb.

[freeagent]

I use 128 for matrix, I didnt notice much of a diff useing 64k. Intel sez 128 is best for matrix as well.

[jason4207]

I wouldn't trust that review if you're using the Intel controller. They use a stand-alone card in that review. I think the default setting (128k iirc) for RAID0 on the Intel controller has been shown to be the best.

I think the info is buried in the old Matrix sticky somewhere (http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=467848).

[JoshOohAh]

I use 128 for matrix, I didnt notice much of a diff useing 64k. Intel sez 128 is best for matrix as well.

I wouldn't trust that review if you're using the Intel controller. They use a stand-alone card in that review. I think the default setting (128k iirc) for RAID0 on the Intel controller has been shown to be the best.

I think the info is buried in the old Matrix sticky somewhere (http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=467848).

Thanks for link and I guess I'll stick with 128 just to be safe.