IDE RAID0 QUESTION! How is the performance of it?

[zippy]

Anyone have benchmarks of the advantages or any reviews or articles?

Is it a lot better than a single hard drive? Or is it a fairly negligible amount?

I am needing some more hard drive space and I'm considering a RAID 0 setup to go with an Asus A7V133+Duron.

Thanks.

 

[zippy]

ttt

 

[Pariah]

Use the search feature, there are 10 zillion threads on RAID on this board alone.

You're a Diamond member and asking a question like this? How have you missed all the other RAID threads?

 

[zippy]

Pariah, thanks for your sarcastic comments, they were very helpful.

By the way, this was the only relevant post that I found. There were not a "zillion"- hell, there were not even two! Also, everyone was very vague in that thread, now, I asked for "benchmarks of the advantages or any reviews or articles?" not people saying, "Yeah, ummm...it's faster in some stuff, but other's...errr...you won't notice it." Wow! That's so helpful! I never would have thought that I'd notice a speed increase on something that is supposed to increase my speed! :Q

EDIT: Not ONE fscking thread about the raid on the A7V133 either. :|

 

[Noriaki]

Depends what you do.

It improves transfer rate quite a bit, but doesn't help seek time.

In most people use seek time is much more important than transfer rate, so you end up basically using a bunch of CPU for very little.

If you happen to do something that's very transfer rate intensive then IDE RAID0 can be a fairly cheap way to improve performance...
Things like heavy Database activity or A/V editing....but both of those would be far better on SCSI....but if you can't afford SCSI...maybe

But for gaming...you are FAR better off just to get more RAM so that you just don't touch disk as much. Even the fastest RAID can't come close to RAM....

IDE RAID0 is quite the fad lately...but in my view it's really not that useful.

IDE RAID1 can be very useful if your data is very important to you and you can't afford SCSI. But IDE RAID0 is a just a fad in my view.

 

[zippy]

Thanks Noriaki!

Yeah, I think I'll just get 1x 30GB IBM 75GXP instead of 2x 15GB 75GXPs- it's a helluva lot cheaper and I won't really notice the difference. Hmmm...maybe I'll get 256MB more RAM (384 total...) instead of 128MB more.

MUWAHAHAH!

 

[Ulysses]

Definitely get more RAM before you get RAID - chech this, which I think is reliable.

My own order of preference is: adequate RAM, dual monitors, fast CPU, and then RAID 0 (or RAID whatever, depending) if it is in the budget. RAID is best when you are using professional apps and large files that are, surprise, HDD-intensive. For normal stuff forget it.

 

[PliotronX]

Is the only reason why there's no talk of RAID on SCSI because it costs more than a mortgage? SCSI RAID5 makes me drool all over myself

 

[BowDown]

Thats not drool PliotronX...

Hehe...

 

[mschell]

RAID does give better performance. Considering the fact that it boost HD performance 10-20% and lots of people on this board go to great lengths to get even a 5% increase in system performance it seems to be worth the trouble.
Adding RAM can increase system performance but all the RAM in the world won't make a program load faster from the hard drive. It also won't help in decompressing large installation files.
Performance benefits for RAM amounts above 128MB are only apparent when manipulating large image or video files.
Current cheap memory prices have allowed many to add system memory and tweak swap file usage to keep virtual memory usage down but my test show very little actual performance gain doing this. An example is Winstone Content Creation 2000 - a benchmark using image and video editing software running simultaneously, you would think the bench would like large amounts of memory and little swap file use, check these numbers
Abit SA6R/HP370
IBM 75GXP, 128MB - 31.2
IBM 75GXP, 256MB - 32.3
IBM 75GXP, 256MB - 32.1 - swap file tweaks
2 Quantum AS RAID 0, 128MB - 34.4
2 Quantum AS RAID 0, 256MB - 34.9
The decompressing of the test files in the benchmark go much faster with the RAID setup but this is not reflected in the score.

I realize than WS CC is not the last word is system performance but for me RAID gave a nice boost in overall system performance.

 

[~zonker~]

I just went from one 75GXP to two 75GXP's in RAID0.... you will definitly notice the difference, more than a 10% processor or memory bandwidth tweak, it adds $10 to the new motherboards, and if you stay with the 15GB drives, $100 or so to the disk srive cost... for a 40% increase in transfer rates... show me a 1.7Ghz Tbird please (1.2Ghx * 1.4)

 

[zippy]

Damn...the cheapest I can find those 15GB IBM 75GXPs is like 230 shipped (for two)- it would probably be better just to go for two 30GB ones for like 300 shipped from outpost! :Q

Well, I would need a mobo with RAID0 too and a new CPU and...damn this would be expensive.

Ya know, I think I'll start with 128MB more PC133 (cuz it's so freaking cheap!) and 1x 30GB IBM 75GXP.

Then I'll see when the Palomino comes out and if it is soon then I'll get a KT133A board and a Palomino and another 30GB 75GXP (I'd get a board with on board IDE RAID .

See, I just made a big deposit of most of my spending money into a really nice CD so I am kind of lacking funds right now- fortunately my grandmother just gave me $100 in cash that she wants me to spend on myself.

 

[Cessna172]

You probably won't notice the difference between RAID and non-RAID. Like a previous post said, if you're not doing video, etc., then don't bother. Hell, spend your money on a faster processor or better video card instead of the extra hard drive. You'll actually notice the difference in those things.