• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

RAID 0 question!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.


Mar 22, 2002
Hey everyone, time for another question from America's Fav MuckRaker Mr. X.... no wait... nevermind...

ANYWAY, can anyone tell me what the optimal partition size, file system, settings are for RAID 0? I ran a bunch of Sisoft benchmarks and nothing made sense. The smaller paritions did a little better but the smallest partition (and most full) ran the worst. Is there correlations? Is one big NTFS file system better than many small one's.... I am running my RAID 0 on two identicle Maxtor ata133 7200rpm 60giggers...


stanks... DOH!

-HJS out..


Very kind Senior
Mar 13, 2002
Greensboro NC
From what I remember reading from a reliable source, his benches did best using stripe sizes of 64K under Fat32(in both W2K and XP). I'm not sure on the partitions on RAID 0, but on our servers, we try to keep the partitions to a single partition per expansion(typically 9 RAID 5 drives and a hot spare). Generally, it's easier for us to back up and reduces geometry issues on the drives in the array. We have an engineer responsible for our benchmarks, who has stated that NTFS will be between 5 and 20% slower on single disks. It should hold true or perhaps a bit slower on the RAID. I've also heard that Sandra is a bit inaccurate on HDD benches, but haven't confirmed it myself. One person I know recommends HDTach for better accuracy, but 50 is steep for a benchmark for home use(the Win9x version is freeware, but you did mention NTFS so I guess that's out).