make the god damn headache stop and answer my question on RAID 0

[termin@tor]

I've read numerous opinions and articles on RAID 0 and every one has a different oppinion.
I will be getting a new computer soon and am considering a dual 74GB Raptor setup. I've heard all kinds of stories about how much *** those things kick in RAID 0.
I've also read all the reviews on how it's not worth it to get RAID 0 for desktops.

Now, investing in a dual 74GB raptors is HUGE! I am kind of on a budget, because I have to also get a water coolig setup and I'm afraid to go much above $2000. Instead of the raptors, I could save soooo much money and get a single 160GB drive, or two 80GB drives in RAID 0. I'm so puzzled. Sometimes I wish there weren't so many choices. Instead of the RAID, I could get a socket 939, instead of the 754. But then again, PCI-E would come out one day, and it will probably become the standard and I would have to upgrade again. Even if I don't go with socket 939, I could still get a 3400+ A64 instead of the 3200+ I was planning on getting, and I could do that with the money I save from the RAID.

Is RAID 0 soooooo important? I will be playing games, working with photoshop and just every day use along with tons of other things. Will I notice such a big difference, a difference so big, that could make me sacrifice a better processor, or better RAM? Would I be better off without the raptors or the RAID and just concentrate on the other components? From experiance, I know that if you're going to build an awesome system, everything in it has to be awesome, or it will be a bottle neck. Will the lack of RAID, or at least the raptor RAID be a bottle neck in my case? (The rest of the system will be a 6800GT, Corsair XMS 1GB 2-3-3-6 1T, 3200+ A64, K8N Neo Platinum, Audigy 2 ZS Gamer Limited Edition)

 

[germanjulian]

do you like the ideal that your more likely to loose your data and if something goes wrong with one hd you will lose all your data. or if you reset the raid controller. and if you want to take your hd to a friends house to transfer some stuff and you cant.

and as seen on o/c front page. raid with raptors makes nearly no difference.
get a 37gb raptor for windows_games and a 160GB sata for storage backup etc.

as you said your on a budget.

 

[termin@tor]

Hmmm. That is another good point. If I have to transfer something to my brother's computer, I won't be able to. I'm not so worried about the drives failing. I don't have much valuable information. But I probably won't like to have to redo everything. All my hard work of installing different things and tweaking others for hours and hours.

It's not really the money that's limiting me. If I have to, I'd shell out $100-200 more for the RAID, if it's really worth it, but seeing the facts, I don't really think I'd get my money's worth. Now, if I get a faster processor, or video card, I will definitly see an increase in performance in games and benchmarks. Plus, all the other facts that I might lose my data, it just doesn't seem like it's worth it.

 

[theELVISCERATOR]

i have a 120GB WD for storage, if array fails...which it hasnt, all my data is on the 120....

i mean comeon of course you dont store your data on your array.

Not that I would store it on my system drive either...so whats the big fricking difference?

these arguments dont jive with reality.

 

[shadowdr]

Raid0 is for large file writes, like video,DVD backups and capturing video and re-authoring to DVD's.If you don't do these things then two raptor is not a big difference over a raptor and a storage drive.It make more difference for 7200 RPM drives then it would 10,000 RPM drives.You cold have a Raptor for your OS drive and still have a pair of 7200 rpm drives in raid for your storage.This would most likely be the fastest setup if you don't have the need for major writes.

 

[Stedeman]

I don't know if you read this thread it is all about your Q http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=310351
I think you would be much happier and more impressed with a single U160 over a RAID "0" for the use / configuration you talking about. And don't let the word SCSI scare you it only has one more step to it than setting up a RAID array and thats just putting on a terminator at the end of a cable (10 seconds max). Also 15,000RPM drives are widely available for U160 / U320 and the cost should be the same or cheaper.

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

^^^ yup

i beleive RAID 0 increase your failure rate to %10 chance ?

 

[Stedeman]

^^^ yup

i beleive RAID 0 increase your failure rate to %10 chance ?

You mean 100% increase in the potential for a failure

 

[attack]

well probability of failure really depends on the drives...let's say raptors have a 5% chance of failing in the first year.

The odds you'll lose one drive, is...you guessed it 5%
now the odds of one or 2 of the drives in a pair fail is 9.75%

so not quite 100% increase relative to the other failure option...in reality you need to find the manufacteres specifications for how often failures occur and do the math your self see just how much more your at risk, if it's 5% like this, your 4.75% more likley to experiance data loss in RAID 0 than RAID 1

 

[mikieboyblue]

You mean 100% increase in the potential for a failure

The failure agrument is not valid, I've ran a 4x60 (PATA) WD raid array for 3.5 years. Not one problem....rock solid, windows, linux, you name it...If it causes a 10% decrease in MTBF, big deal seeing as WD rates that at something crazy like over 5 years...(last I checked)...

 

[mikieboyblue]

Is RAID 0 soooooo important?

I have a post just below this one, I've been asking the same question. At this point, I'd honestly say get two WD 120s or 160s (that's what I'm looking at) and put them in RAID0, use the 150+ dollar diff to get a a64 with either a 754 or 939 board. I'm personally only getting a DFI Infinity since I figure a64 is still being worked out and I don't want to buy a 200 buck board now and have pci-express come out and not be able to get an new vid/other cards.

To answer the question, I had a single WD PATA 60 at first...then I decided to go RAID on an MSI board (KT266 crap)...It was a lot faster in everyday w2k. Now, I have a Abit (KT333/Barton 2500+) setup with 4 WD60s (the original two still remain) and it is great. The best thing I like about RAID is the ability to have one large drive and not play the game of different hard drives while getting the preformance. If you work in Photoshop you will see a difference. I have. My family's PC uses a WD40, it's slow. They are getting moved to RAID0 as soon as I upgrade.

System:
Barton 2500+ @ 2.4
Corsair PC3200 1gig
Abit KX7-333R
4 WD PATA 60s 2mb cache
PC 9700 Pro
Wireless Lan DI-530
Netgear Wired
SB Live! w/drive
Plextor 12x10x40
Creative DVD 12x
Sandra Filesystem bench while running full load F@H and being on for one week straight = 58mb/s....not bad for PATA.
I think a 32k stripe right now but could be 64k (HPT372)

 

[Vio1]

Buddy, I'll make this simple for you. Get 1 74GB Raptor for your OS and get a different HDD for storage.
Raid-0 with raptors is a waste of money. Raid-0 with 7200rpm drives is a good idea but then you have a slow access time.

I had 2 36.7gb raptors in raid-0 and sold them both to get a single 74gb raptor.

 

[mikieboyblue]

Buddy, I'll make this simple for you. Get 1 74GB Raptor for your OS and get a different HDD for storage.
Raid-0 with raptors is a waste of money. Raid-0 with 7200rpm drives is a good idea but then you have a slow access time.

I had 2 36.7gb raptors in raid-0 and sold them both to get a single 74gb raptor.

Also one option I looked at...opted to save the money...raptors are so expensive

 

[Stedeman]

The failure agrument is not valid, I've ran a 4x60 (PATA) WD raid array for 3.5 years. Not one problem....rock solid, windows, linux, you name it...If it causes a 10% decrease in MTBF, big deal seeing as WD rates that at something crazy like over 5 years...(last I checked)...

The failure argument is absolutely valid. It is just a mater of how valid for an average user or in this case "termin@tor". He will gain little to nothing in performance for using it for his purpose. And now he has both reduced the length of MTBF and at least doubled the statistical provability of a system failure. As for you and I our uses for RAID will be different. I have used it many times in the past and will again in the near future (RAID "0" or "0+1" with U320's) I also know it's disadvantages; my first RAID configuration used the 80GB Maxtor's . I believe he is making the best decision for his configuration.

if I get a faster processor, or video card, I will definitely see an increase in performance in games and benchmarks. Plus, all the other facts that I might lose my data, it just doesn't seem like it's worth it.

 

[Mortis03]

My quick 2 cents...

I'm by no means a raptor or raid guru, but a lot of the tests are done w/ the mobo raid controls and not a pci card. I think that you'll get a noticible difference with the pci raid setup and not with the mobo setup. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[obsolete]

I vote one 36.7 Raptor & or one 74 gig Raptor. Then a bigger hd for storage. I currently have one 36.7 Raptor & one WD 80gig HD, both Sata. The 36.7 Raptor is plenty of space for games, applications, etc......The 80 gig could be bigger, but it'll do. Just makes me clean up the drive more often, instead of having a bunch of "junk" miscellaneous files sitting around.