My personal experience shows that RAID 0 does indeed increase productivity. I have an application that copies approx. 15,000 jpegs from one location to another twice weekly. RAID 0 dramatically decreases the time required to accomplish this task. In fact, I recently changed from a standard of 2 IDE 7200 rpm, 8 mb cache IDE drives to 2 WD Raptor 74GB 10,000 drives and have seen a reduction in processing time from 12 min. to 6 min. on. RAID 0 does indeed increase productivity regardless of what others are saying. If your talking about a single, small file size of a few kilobytes, then I would have to agree that RAID 0 provides little in the way of an increase in throughput.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Taking issue with the recently posted RAID O post
- Thread starter dwalker
- Start date
sramjones
Disabled
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Location
- Bronx New York
i think its a increase in performance also, I luv my raptors
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Location
- VARIANTE ASCARI
The articles that people seem to be quoting lately are based on benchmarks of the average desktop setup. I believe that most people, those that are not in it for the benchmarks only, who use RAID0 in the long term are people that actually have more intensive requirements for their "DeskTop" machines & dont fall in the category that these tests were suppose to be reflecting.
Yeah, I love my raided set and agree with the article in the most part but if you transfer files from harddrive to harddrive alot and run multiple streams on your lan for watching movies it sure does help. Hence lanparty. Currently running a server OS and its mainly for HTTP or webserver but i also do video editing and music so the article in a place like overclockers is alot of BS, and personally have seen differences in image writing and DVD extraction and creating. REAL world time watch differences.
Ok, my 2 cents
Ok, my 2 cents
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Location
- Wilmington DE
I see no real boost in game loading, but copying my Big DVD shrink vid files around is a lot quicker. I've got 2 DVD burning rigs. one with 4 burners and a single drive. And my server with a pair of seagate 200's in raid 0. All are gigabit lan and a gigabit switch.
Also as above. Whenever im backing up my "picture" folder, and music folder. probably 60.000 files. There is a huge difference in copying times with raid 0.
Also as above. Whenever im backing up my "picture" folder, and music folder. probably 60.000 files. There is a huge difference in copying times with raid 0.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
Fast? Yes. Reliable? Questionable.
Yes, RAID 0 is killer for speeding up disk-to-disk transfers. As long as you have your data backed up, you are fine. If not, you have just DOUBLED your chance of a HD failure since the odds of one of 2 HD's failing is double that of one HD failing (loose ALL RAID0 data with only 1 failure).
This is why "Mirroring AND striping" raid arrays are preferred in "Critical Applicatons".
I GUARUNTEE, if we used a simple RAID0 at work, we would have lost MILLIONS of dollars in revenue by now (All of our commercials play off video servers).
It is not uncommon for us to loose a drive about once every month or so (granted we have over 180 drives for our TEN video servers). With SCSI RAID5, we are covered, AND have extreme bandwith we REQUIRE to operate, and be profitable at the same time.
Back-up, and all is good in RAID0 land... For mission critical apps, RAID0 will NOT cut it. Transferring DVD's to another drive - sure. "Consumer Quality" is what I consider it, and that is how it shuold be treated.
Yes, RAID 0 is killer for speeding up disk-to-disk transfers. As long as you have your data backed up, you are fine. If not, you have just DOUBLED your chance of a HD failure since the odds of one of 2 HD's failing is double that of one HD failing (loose ALL RAID0 data with only 1 failure).
This is why "Mirroring AND striping" raid arrays are preferred in "Critical Applicatons".
I GUARUNTEE, if we used a simple RAID0 at work, we would have lost MILLIONS of dollars in revenue by now (All of our commercials play off video servers).
It is not uncommon for us to loose a drive about once every month or so (granted we have over 180 drives for our TEN video servers). With SCSI RAID5, we are covered, AND have extreme bandwith we REQUIRE to operate, and be profitable at the same time.
Back-up, and all is good in RAID0 land... For mission critical apps, RAID0 will NOT cut it. Transferring DVD's to another drive - sure. "Consumer Quality" is what I consider it, and that is how it shuold be treated.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- San Diego, CA
We are a group of people that will pay upwards of $200 to cool our computers to get a few extra MHZ. This is not making a HUGE preformance difference, but it is noticible. I could overclock my videocard and pay money for a waterblock and ramsinks for it just to get an extra 10FPS in quake. This is not a noticible difference, but many of us still do it.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
Yes we OC like crazy. But, as long as you lock your PCI buss, the chance of LOOSING HD data is fairly low. Burning up a chip is EXPENSIVE, but replaceable. Some data is IRRIPLACEABLE. This is where RAID0 has no place IMO.
DVD-R transfers are a fantastic use of RAID0 as you likely have the DVD discs somewhere as an automatic backup, and you can enjoy the "worry free" benefits of more bandwidth. IF you loose a drive, you have a backup.
My point is to RELIABLY have a RAID0, you need as much EXTRA room for backup as the RAID0 array can hold. I use my WD200gig strictly as a B/U staorage drive for my important multitrack files, and MP3's (which are ALSO archived weekly onto DVD-R). I don't have my DVD videos on more than 1 drive, but I do have the DVD discs.
To each his own. RAID0 is fantastic if backed up, and as long as the risks are acceptable.
DVD-R transfers are a fantastic use of RAID0 as you likely have the DVD discs somewhere as an automatic backup, and you can enjoy the "worry free" benefits of more bandwidth. IF you loose a drive, you have a backup.
My point is to RELIABLY have a RAID0, you need as much EXTRA room for backup as the RAID0 array can hold. I use my WD200gig strictly as a B/U staorage drive for my important multitrack files, and MP3's (which are ALSO archived weekly onto DVD-R). I don't have my DVD videos on more than 1 drive, but I do have the DVD discs.
To each his own. RAID0 is fantastic if backed up, and as long as the risks are acceptable.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2002
- Location
- Rootstown, OH
Sonny said:
I agree... The way the articles were presented in some places seemed as though it was done to ruffle feathers, when actually what the results reflected didn't concern the people whose feathers ended up ruffled.
- Joined
- May 3, 2003
- Location
- Cleveland, GA
Randyman... said:Fast? Yes. Reliable? Questionable.
Yes, RAID 0 is killer for speeding up disk-to-disk transfers. As long as you have your data backed up, you are fine. If not, you have just DOUBLED your chance of a HD failure since the odds of one of 2 HD's failing is double that of one HD failing (loose ALL RAID0 data with only 1 failure).
This is why "Mirroring AND striping" raid arrays are preferred in "Critical Applicatons".
I GUARUNTEE, if we used a simple RAID0 at work, we would have lost MILLIONS of dollars in revenue by now (All of our commercials play off video servers).
It is not uncommon for us to loose a drive about once every month or so (granted we have over 180 drives for our TEN video servers). With SCSI RAID5, we are covered, AND have extreme bandwith we REQUIRE to operate, and be profitable at the same time.
Back-up, and all is good in RAID0 land... For mission critical apps, RAID0 will NOT cut it. Transferring DVD's to another drive - sure. "Consumer Quality" is what I consider it, and that is how it shuold be treated.
Most of the computers referred to here are "hobby" machines and gaming rigs used for the personal satisfaction of the users. Most businesses should know that any type of hardrive used for business purposes requires back up, RAID0/1/5/JBOD or no RAID on a daily, if not hourly basis depending on the applications. All it takes is one crash and the 4 weeks of data you lost to teach one that lesson(personal expewrience). I do run a RAID0 set up on my server at work, I feel it speeds up the transfer and and utiliztion of my CAD program, but it also has a built-in back up system which copies the entire array twice daily maintaining a minimum of three copies on hand. I also reccommend that the data be stored off site in case of catastrophe, i.e.; fire,flood, tornado.
As far as RAID0, my twin raptors on my gaming rig kick butt! Wouldn't have it any other way, but there again, there's another disk in there for back up of critical data files, photos, videos, and music.
So generally speaking if someone like me were considering either one 74 Gig Raptor or 2x36 Gig raptors, was an enthusiast, mostly involved in gaming with this rig, what do you think most other enthusiasts would recommend ?
Notwithstanding Anandtech's recent findings, I am really really tempted to go with the 36x2 raptors... can't be that much slower than a 74, and once in a while I'm sure I'd get a nice boost... As for reliability.. I can reinstall my games and windows and have a storage disk on the side..
Notwithstanding Anandtech's recent findings, I am really really tempted to go with the 36x2 raptors... can't be that much slower than a 74, and once in a while I'm sure I'd get a nice boost... As for reliability.. I can reinstall my games and windows and have a storage disk on the side..
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
If using RAID0 as boot drive, your PC will boot faster, and the game will load faster - but NO increase in FPS. It is 100% up to you.
Take the occasional AWSOME bump in bandwidth, but be ready for a rude awakening if you have a failure. BACK-UP, and just do RAID0. I did it because I colud, and then about 2 weeks later, I dismantled the array. It sure was cool to tell everyone "I have a 305Gig RAID array". Now, I just say "I have over 1/2 TB of storage", and I'm happy
I was able to use Ghost 2002 to image my Promise RAID0 onto another drive, and dismantled my array that way (W/O loosing ANY data). If you don't like it, just make sure you have a way out (If I filled up all 305 Gigs, I would NOT have had enough B/U storage to dismantle the array sucessfully).
One other point - On my P4C800E-Dlx, After installing the Promise FastTrak drivers for Promise RAID, I had to re-install XP to get my Promise to work in IDE mode. No matter WHAT I did, (un installing AND deleting the RAID drivers), EVERY time I went to install the Promise IDE, it defaulted to the FastTrak, and just WOULD'T go back to IDE mode. If using the ICH5R, this is probably not abn issue. Maybe this was an isolated incident, but it screwed me out of an install once.
Do it to it. It is a fun experience.
Take the occasional AWSOME bump in bandwidth, but be ready for a rude awakening if you have a failure. BACK-UP, and just do RAID0. I did it because I colud, and then about 2 weeks later, I dismantled the array. It sure was cool to tell everyone "I have a 305Gig RAID array". Now, I just say "I have over 1/2 TB of storage", and I'm happy
I was able to use Ghost 2002 to image my Promise RAID0 onto another drive, and dismantled my array that way (W/O loosing ANY data). If you don't like it, just make sure you have a way out (If I filled up all 305 Gigs, I would NOT have had enough B/U storage to dismantle the array sucessfully).
One other point - On my P4C800E-Dlx, After installing the Promise FastTrak drivers for Promise RAID, I had to re-install XP to get my Promise to work in IDE mode. No matter WHAT I did, (un installing AND deleting the RAID drivers), EVERY time I went to install the Promise IDE, it defaulted to the FastTrak, and just WOULD'T go back to IDE mode. If using the ICH5R, this is probably not abn issue. Maybe this was an isolated incident, but it screwed me out of an install once.
Do it to it. It is a fun experience.
Last edited:
Similar threads
