-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Who says that two raptors arent better than one? Part 2
- Thread starter dominick32
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Location
- Chicago, IL
Already is 
Dom
I love the real world testing it's the only truth, i just tested 5 new DVD optical burners my self because all the synthetic test from reviews were worthless now i finally have one drive that can do. I know exactly what you mean by burnout. On each drive i tested all possible things you could use the drive for. I tested multiple times with varying quality of pressed disks and media wow was there a difference. I was first able to narrow down the 5 choices with research using cdfreaks complaints on there drives. When i asked what was the best burner they all said that was a bad question and there tired of people asking. Sorry for the short story i know what you mean by relief lol.
Just one thing i want to mention that could possibly help you. During my testing because all the burning programs and software installations with testing that could possible trash the system to cause optical drive problems. This is one of the biggest beliefs at cdfreaks, i also thought it happend to me but it did not. It was the burner every time 100% guaranteed
What i did was clone my original harddrive to spare hardrive for safe keeping.
I used maindrive to setup operating system, updates, drivers, install some programs. Then i clone that to backup drive. Whenever i needed fresh OS all setup i use the backup. It took about 3 minuets for the transfers, no raptor yet.
You can clone to and from RAID 0 also a none raid drive, with the software CD that i use, i just have not tested that yet.
I'm getting one raptor 150G this Wednesday after reading this I'm looking forward to a boost with two next year. This is exactly how i like see testing done, excellent work, nice pick on the games to.
I love the real world testing it's the only truth, i just tested 5 new DVD optical burners my self because all the synthetic test from reviews were worthless now i finally have one drive that can do. I know exactly what you mean by burnout. On each drive i tested all possible things you could use the drive for. I tested multiple times with varying quality of pressed disks and media wow was there a difference. I was first able to narrow down the 5 choices with research using cdfreaks complaints on there drives. When i asked what was the best burner they all said that was a bad question and there tired of people asking. Sorry for the short story i know what you mean by relief lol.
Just one thing i want to mention that could possibly help you. During my testing because all the burning programs and software installations with testing that could possible trash the system to cause optical drive problems. This is one of the biggest beliefs at cdfreaks, i also thought it happend to me but it did not. It was the burner every time 100% guaranteed
What i did was clone my original harddrive to spare hardrive for safe keeping.
I used maindrive to setup operating system, updates, drivers, install some programs. Then i clone that to backup drive. Whenever i needed fresh OS all setup i use the backup. It took about 3 minuets for the transfers, no raptor yet.
You can clone to and from RAID 0 also a none raid drive, with the software CD that i use, i just have not tested that yet.
I'm getting one raptor 150G this Wednesday after reading this I'm looking forward to a boost with two next year. This is exactly how i like see testing done, excellent work, nice pick on the games to.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
Well I still am first in BF2 servers in 99x out of 100 and only one gig o ram too.
(darn chips changed and had to rma by second batch of Adata Hyperram).
(darn chips changed and had to rma by second batch of Adata Hyperram).
is this for raptors only?
cuz anandtech says
Originally Posted by Anandtech
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
There are some exceptions, especially if you are running a particular application that itself benefits considerably from a striped array, and obviously, our comments do not apply to server-class IO of any sort. But for the vast majority of desktop users and gamers alike, save your money and stay away from RAID-0.
cuz anandtech says
Originally Posted by Anandtech
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
There are some exceptions, especially if you are running a particular application that itself benefits considerably from a striped array, and obviously, our comments do not apply to server-class IO of any sort. But for the vast majority of desktop users and gamers alike, save your money and stay away from RAID-0.
tvdang7 said:
The key is in the acronym: Redundant Array of INEXPENSIVE Disks.
Raptors therefore, may not be used in RAID by definition
Those that violate this holy commandment of RAID shall pay...through the nose! Whatever makes you happy... It is kind of ironic to see 2 stickies right next to each other, one claiming RAID0 on raptors is pointless, one saying its great.
It seems to me that the other thread uses a more 'real' situation (game loading) rather than the synthetic benchies used to prove the point here. Undoubtedly, RAID0 with raptors has its adavntages as you have shown, but do we really need it?
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
Most people prefer RAID=Redundant Array of Independant DisksFridge said:
The other definition rules out SCSI disks, which was RAID's original use. I use 15krpm U320 disks all the time at work, and they are not inexpensive at all, quite the opposite, actually, but their MTBF is much higher.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
Fridge said:
ummm the OP used a stop watch and loaded different things multiple times (games included). How is that synthetic? And no you don't need RAID0, then again you dont NEED a dual core processor or a 1900xtx...
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Location
- Yorkshire, England
Very useful thread can't wait for Part 3, I always knew RAID 0 was faster for general I/O intensive tasks (previous experince with raid 0, when sata first came out (nightmare with win xp but ran fine in 98) and u320 scsi raid array with cheetahs) but any chance of seeing the performance difference of 2 drives vs 4 drives (both raid 0 arrays)? I ran 4 drives on my scsi array for a breif period but had problems with the power supply but the difference in performance from 2 drives to 4 drives did not seem as much as single drive to 2 drives performance boost. With most new motherboards supporting 4x sata ports you might as well use them all if its worth the extra money. I do alot of video encoding myself and im planning a new system build as video encoding on my centrino laptop isnt fun
Another quick question, ive looked around and seen that NCQ and SATA II drives are now available, i presume the 10k rpm of the raptors still makes them faster even with the slower inferface?
Another quick question, ive looked around and seen that NCQ and SATA II drives are now available, i presume the 10k rpm of the raptors still makes them faster even with the slower inferface?
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
Hi Dom,
I have a couple of questions about your methodology. Let's take a look at the Windows XP Loading test as seen in this image:
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/pic5.jpg
I was wondering what exactly "Windows XP - Bootup time" means? I.e. was this measured from the time you threw the switch until you could move the mouse in windows? Until the login screen? Until IE opend? It would be nice if you told us this. I would like to replicate your experiment and such details are important.
I have a couple of questions about your methodology. Let's take a look at the Windows XP Loading test as seen in this image:
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/pic5.jpg
I was wondering what exactly "Windows XP - Bootup time" means? I.e. was this measured from the time you threw the switch until you could move the mouse in windows? Until the login screen? Until IE opend? It would be nice if you told us this. I would like to replicate your experiment and such details are important.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
*bump*Drizzt[81] said:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Location
- New York
- Thread Starter
- #77
Hey guys. Sorry it took so long to answer this one. I have been swamped at work.Drizzt[81] said:
Anyway, the Windows XP boot was timed immediately after the BIOS Posts its final figures (ex: Hard Drive Initialization or Raid Init) and is completed when the XP Professional login prompt appears and the hourglass dissapears.
Dom
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
Thanks. WinXP SP1 or SP2? What version were the RAID/ nVidia drivers? Was it the classic login or the pretty one with pictures. Just a plain WinXP install with no other tools, I assume? Were the drives defragged before testing or not? What size (if any) Pagefile? Static or Dynamic Pagefile? Was WinXP activated or a corporate copy?dominick32 said:
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Location
- New York
- Thread Starter
- #79
Drizzt[81] said:
All of this information can be found in the beginning text of my article with the exception of the pagefilem, login prompt, and raid drivers. I left paging file options at the system defaults and it was the classic logon prompt. Raid drivers were the latest NVRaid drivers at the time of the article.
Hope this helps. Keep me posted through the PM system about you results.
