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

RAID 0 vs Velociraptor

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