Is Raid 0 Worth it?

[KKiller]

Many new motherboards these days come with Raid controllers inbuilt. I was thinking of buildign a RAID 0 config... but I was wondering if that was worth it? I'd want to build one if it doubled my hard drive throughput speed (for faster gaming). However, I think I read a AT article a while back stating that RAID 0 config doesn't really give you all that much improvement on performance. Any one have any experience in this area? Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Daovonnaex]

Faster hard disks won't make a noticable difference in gaming. Unless you do hard disk intensive work such as video editing (or have cash to waste and feel like having RAID 0 for no particular reason), I don't recommend it.

 

[Passions]

Increased HD failure risk. If speed is something u consider more valuable than reliability, go for it!

 

[cbuchach]

It doesn't exactly double hard drive performance. I would say roughly (very roughly) an overall 50% increase in performance. Disk throughput will increase by close to 2x, but overall performance is governed by more than just disk max throughput.

Basically I consider RAID0 good for the person who wants very good hard drive performance, can't afford a SCSI setup, is technically adept, and has a GOOD BACKUP SOLUTION IN PLACE.

I have a RAID0 setup and am very happy with it. My dual 60GXP's kill my single 120GXP in terms of performace. There IS a noticable performance increase over a single drive.

 

[imgod2u]

Ummm, RAID 0 (or so I've heard) only increases your write speed. It will actually decrease your read speed not to mention hike up your access time. If you play games, this will actually decrease your gaming performance slightly. The only time in which it will help is when you are doing HD-write intensive tasks such as video encoding (unless you're doing a compression that is stretching your processor instead of your HD). IDE RAID is not worth it at all in my opinion. Just get 2 7200 rpm drives and you should be fine. If you need more than that, get SCSI, it's not THAT expensive.

 

[sharkeeper]

<< Ummm, RAID 0 (or so I've heard) only increases your write speed. It will actually decrease your read speed not to mention hike up your access time >>



Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but your sources are sorely mistaken.

Cheers!

 

[DrZone]

<< Increased HD failure risk. If speed is something u consider more valuable than reliability, go for it! >>



I had no idea it would "INCREASE" HD failure risk. I thought the risk was the same. It's just that if one drive dies, you lose everything. But I dont think having a RAID setup increases your chances of losing a drive over a non-RAID setup.

 

[Rakkis]

He did not mean the chance of losing a drive. He meant the chance of losing data.

You're correct. The chances of physical failure for each drive is the same. But when you use them in a RAID 0, chances of losing data doubles.

Why?

Let's say chances of drive failure are 1 in 100
Let's also say your array has 2 of these drives.

You now have 2 drives that work as one. RAID 0 does not replicate data between the drives. So.. losing ONE drive means losing the data. The other drive is physically fine, but more than likely useless now since it only has incomplete data in it. Hence, you now have an array with a 2 in 100 chance of data loss.

 

[Possum]

That probability math doesn't make sense:

Let's say (just for example purposes) that you have a RAID 0 array that has 100 drives. Using your math, that means each drive, with 1 in 100 chance of failure, would add up and make the total probability of data loss 100 in 100. That's guaranteed data loss... it's not right.

 

[LethalWolfe]

One my first editing rig I ran two HDDs in RAID 0. One of my HDDs failed (thankfully i wasn't working on a project at the time). I sold the RAID card (it was a Promise PCI card).

If you use RAID 0 make sure you back up regularly. If one HDD in RAID 0 fails yer outta luck. At least if a non-RAIDed HDD fails you have some chance of recovering data.

For me RAID 0 isn't worth it.

Lethal

 

[Acanthus]

please note that the on board chips on motherboards are nothing more than glorified software raid, and this actually takes up CPU every time you acess your raid array because your cpu and raid chip have to rebuild the broken up data. Most people who run raid 0 configurations have to format every 6 weeks or so, because the data slowly corrupts over time(had a 4 drive integrated array, hated it)
also note that i saw no real world performance increases unless i was loading MASSIVE files (like decoded DVDs 10GB+)

 

[imgod2u]

<<

<< Ummm, RAID 0 (or so I've heard) only increases your write speed. It will actually decrease your read speed not to mention hike up your access time >>



Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but your sources are sorely mistaken.

Cheers! >>



Hmmm, that's weird because I've talked to a lot of people and most of them who actually knew (in other words, didn't just say I don't know) told me that RAID 0 does slow down read speeds. It makes sense since you have to switch between each drive to read the strips of data not to mention search across 2 drives.

 

[LethalWolfe]

<< That probability math doesn't make sense:

Let's say (just for example purposes) that you have a RAID 0 array that has 100 drives. Using your math, that means each drive, with 1 in 100 chance of failure, would add up and make the total probability of data loss 100 in 100. That's guaranteed data loss... it's not right. >>




I think we're making this too complicated. And it's been a long time since i've done probability, but I'll take a stab at it. In RAID 0 all it takes is one HDD to fail to cause total data loss. It's kinda like winning the lottery. The more tickets you buy, the greater yer chances of winning (because it only takes 1 ticket to win). The more HDDs you buy/use the higher the chances of getting a "bum" drive/or killing a drive.

How about an extreme example. Let's say you put 100 HDDs into a big RAID 0 setup. All it takes is 1 drive out of 100 to fail, and destroy the setup. If buy one drive, and you buy 100 drives, who's the greater chance of getting a bad drive?


The more HDDs you use the greater the chance of having a drive fail (either 'cause it's a bum drive, or 'cause you fried it).


Lethal

 

[w9design]

Re: Possum


<< That probability math doesn't make sense:

Let's say (just for example purposes) that you have a RAID 0 array that has 100 drives. Using your math, that means each drive, with 1 in 100 chance of failure, would add up and make the total probability of data loss 100 in 100. That's guaranteed data loss... it's not right.
>>



I disagree. In a way, it does make perfect sense.
Let's say you have your 100-drive RAID array, and each drive has a 1 in 100 chance of croaking. Since you have 100 drives, probability dictates that one of them will die (hence 1:100). If one of those drives dies, then the data on the other 99 is useless.

 

[Possum]

<< I disagree. In a way, it does make perfect sense.
Let's say you have your 100-drive RAID array, and each drive has a 1 in 100 chance of croaking. Since you have 100 drives, probability dictates that one of them will die (hence 1:100). If one of those drives dies, then the data on the other 99 is useless. >>



I don't think you read the post I was replying to. The guy was saying using two drives gives you a probability of 2:100 that you will lose data. I agree with your 1:100, which is why I was giving that example. The guy's logic was off.

If you're disagreeing to my post, but agreeing to the guy's 2:100, then you're agreeing that 2 drives gives a 2:100 probability of data failure AND that 100 drives give you a 1:100 data failure.

I'm saying it's always going to be 1:100 if all of the drives are the same. How about picking and sticking to one instead of being vague?

 

[KKiller]

<< please note that the on board chips on motherboards are nothing more than glorified software raid, and this actually takes up CPU every time you acess your raid array because your cpu and raid chip have to rebuild the broken up data. Most people who run raid 0 configurations have to format every 6 weeks or so, because the data slowly corrupts over time(had a 4 drive integrated array, hated it)
also note that i saw no real world performance increases unless i was loading MASSIVE files (like decoded DVDs 10GB+) >>



So RAID users.. do you find this for the most part to be true? Is there really increase in performance?

 

[Rakkis]

Possum:

Yes.. you're following my reasoning correctly. Assuming the odds of a SINGLE hard drive dying were 1:100, if you have 100 drives, one of them WILL (according to probability) fail.

In a RAID 0, parts of your data are stored in each drive. There is no fault tolerance or data redundancy. Hence, if even ONE of your 100-drive array gets fried, your data is irrecoverable.

[edit: added another example]

Maybe this will illustrate my point better. Flip a coin. What are your chances of getting heads? 1/2. Now flip 100 coins.. what are the chances of not having a head at all? 1/(2)^100... Essentially 0.

As you can see, if there is a small chance that an event will occur, and you repeat the conditions under which the event can occur (running 100 drives simultaneously), the chance of the event to happen IN THE POOL OF OPPORTUNITIES (100 drives in tandem) will increase even though the chance of the event to happen in an INDIVIDUAL trial remains the same.

 

[creedawg]

KKiller,
I would say Yes and No! I would say yes if your motherboad has RAID on-board. If not,
you would you would have to buy a RAID card for roughly $30-$40 (most likely single
or dual channel). For everyday use, you won't see a significant difference if your computer is fast enough. Make
sure that you can afford to have the fastest drives, since they will give you the best results.
For example, at least 7200RPM drives ATA100. Now many will agree that the burst rate
does increase and the sustained transfer rate or average data transfer increases slighlty over
RAID0. Like everyone mentioned, their is no data security when the drives are stripped. However,
I have been running a RAID0 and I have dealt with some nasty crashes and never once have
I lost any data. It all depends on mechanical failure of your HD more than software crashes
that occur. However, anyway you look at it you have a high chance of losing data with RAID0.

Now I say no to RAID0 config, if you don't want to spend the money. RAID0 = 2 drives + a PCI
card (only if your mobo has RAID onboard). So extra money is always the equation of RAID0 config.
Also, their aren't very many people who are musical/graphical/web editors or those with servers. These
are the many uses that RAID0 can be benificial! Although RAID 0 + 1 would be for server purposes. This
is the burst rate thats important for huge files. Almost every other person who has a RAID0 config uses
it for performance or benchmarking purposes! I myself use my RAID0 for performance.

So if you want to spend extra money to get probably a 20-40% difference then RAID0 would be a
good remedy, but that will depend on the drives used. Make sure that you get the most current drives,
which should give you a good approach toward the best performance!

CreeDiddy

 

[ssanches]

<< That probability math doesn't make sense:

Let's say (just for example purposes) that you have a RAID 0 array that has 100 drives. Using your math, that means each drive, with 1 in 100 chance of failure, would add up and make the total probability of data loss 100 in 100. That's guaranteed data loss... it's not right. >>



I did the math and if you have 100 HDD's and each have a 1 in 100 chance of failure, then the chance of the system failing i.e. any one HDD in the array failing, is 63.396765872677049506938397342748%!

 

[NOX]

<<

<< please note that the on board chips on motherboards are nothing more than glorified software raid, and this actually takes up CPU every time you acess your raid array because your cpu and raid chip have to rebuild the broken up data. Most people who run raid 0 configurations have to format every 6 weeks or so, because the data slowly corrupts over time(had a 4 drive integrated array, hated it)
also note that i saw no real world performance increases unless i was loading MASSIVE files (like decoded DVDs 10GB+) >>



So RAID users.. do you find this for the most part to be true? Is there really increase in performance? >>

Ask me again in about six months and I'll let you know... Though so far so good, the only real reason why I went the RAID0 route was because I do a lot of video editing, encoding etc... The other small performance increases has its advantages, but nothing earth shattering, though a plus nonetheless.

I used a single Maxtor 40GB 7200RPM ATA100 drive for a long time before making the change, now I use two (RAID0) Maxtor 40GB (80GB) 7200RPM ATA100?s, and the performance increase was instantly noticeable. Applications load quicker, certain programs run smoother, for example Photoshop will load and convert my larger (even smaller) images much quicker then my old setup, and so does many of my other photo/video editing tools.

However, I will have to agree with everyone?s opinion and or experience pertaining to fault tolerance. I?ve never had a drive fail on me ever (knocking on wood)! But if one ever did I would be in deep sh1t, I would lose all my important video files, and that I can?t let happen. Luckily I have a back up server, and I am able to back up all my video files to that computer after I complete them.

Though going back to performance, it was noticeable for me others have stated otherwise but I wont comment about that because there are a number of factors that come into play, thus your own outcome could differ dramatically then others here. The only way to know for sure is to try it out for yourself, and see what happens. If it works out for you then great, if not then you can always go back to your single drive setup, and sell that extra drive here at AT. Of course this is just for the interim, while I save up for a SCSI setup (maybe even SCSI RAID)!

 

[TheWart]

same opinion as cbuchach. i have 2x40GB WDs that are awesome. i also have a strict backup regimen.

 

[KKiller]

Okay guys! thanks for your input. It looks like RAID 0 is worth it after all... i will attempt putting a RAID 0 config in my next system. Is the motherboard RAID as good as the PCI RAID solutions out there?

 

[NOX]

Never tried the PCI RAID, but onboard works great for me. If you're looking at promise ATA RAID cards I would think you're getting a lot for your money. This card from Adaptec looks good though, but Promise should be cheaper.

 

[Salvador]

I was looking at the IWill SIDE RAID controller card with the Highpoint chipset featured on the Anandtech RAID article and had a few questions about it. First of all, I suspect that it's a software card being that I can get it for under $50 from Newegg.

First of all, could I boot off of my drives with a software RAID card? I'm a little confused about this. I read in some reviews/articles that you have to set up a separate partition to boot off of with a software RAID setup. Can't I just plug in the card, add my two drives, set the card BIOS and then fdisk and format like any other drive or is there something special that has to be done?

Also.. I have 2 WD1200JB drives. I've heard that they are as quick as most drives in RAID 0 mode when these drives are on regular IDE channels. Do you think RAIDing the JB drives is worthwhile? I've seen a lot of posts about people mentioning that they were going to RAID 0 their WD1200JB drives, but I haven't seen much info from the people that have done this. I'd like comparisons between the drive in regular IDE mode and in the RAID 0 configuration.

TIA,

Sal

 

[PrivateIdaho]

Check out the cards from 3ware....