Wow, RAID-0 gets owned!

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,303
4
81
After seeing this article, i'm quite glad i decided to get a 74 GB Raptor for my about-to-be-built setup rather than two 36 GBs.

The Raptor purchase in itself may have been an unnecessarily excessive purchase, but i guess i will see soon enough
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Wow 2 74GB Raptors in RAID-0 is just the same as 1 74GB Raptor in the UT2004 loading test and in many others. What a surprise! I was expecting at least 10% increase using RAID-0.
 

LED

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,127
0
0
Hmmm not to knock your post but if I had a choice between 1 Faster HD with the same space as a slower 1 X2 @ a lesser price than i would go that route as well

Yes Raid0 is not twice as fast as IDE/SATA x2 but faster or equal non the less...prefer RAID5 myself
 

Tostada

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,789
0
0
n7: As LED implied, 36GB Raptors really suck compared to 74GB ones. The 74's are much faster, so obviously getting a pair of 36's would be stupid.

The article on AT, though, doesn't mean RAID sucks. It only means that Intel's onboard RAID sucks, and I could've told you that.

Go to StorageReview and you'll see that a Promise FastTrack card will give you a noticable boost in many things.
 

mb

Lifer
Jun 27, 2004
10,234
2
71
I'm glad they did that article. I had believed that RAID 0 would be much, much faster, but this definitly proves otherwise.
Pure hard disk performance is impressive, but that's about it.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: Tostada
n7: As LED implied, 36GB Raptors really suck compared to 74GB ones. The 74's are much faster, so obviously getting a pair of 36's would be stupid.

The article on AT, though, doesn't mean RAID sucks. It only means that Intel's onboard RAID sucks, and I could've told you that.

Go to StorageReview and you'll see that a Promise FastTrack card will give you a noticable boost in many things.
Intel's RAID is standard fare though; just like how few people shell out the cash for Xeons, few people will shell out the cash for a full hardware RAID controller.
 

tr1kstanc3

Senior member
Sep 25, 2001
361
0
0
im using 2 x seagate 80gb 7200.7 sata drives on my msi k8n neo. i tested installing windows on the drives in a regular 2 disk config and also in raid 0 array. from personal experience my boot times dropped from 39 seconds to 28 seconds and editing files in cubase sx are noticeably faster. dunno what the deal is with this review but techreport had a great review with multiple chipsets and raptors.
 

RacerX

Senior member
Oct 22, 1999
873
0
0
Just agreeing with a couple statments above. There should have been testing done on a NF3-250 setup ... I have a VNF3 and a pair of 80gb Hitachi's in Raid-0 and the difference was immediately noticeable ... long before even looking at benchmarks.
 

Stealth1024

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2000
2,266
0
0
Didn't the review use software RAID though? I would think hardware RAID might put up a better fight.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: tr1kstanc3
im using 2 x seagate 80gb 7200.7 sata drives on my msi k8n neo. i tested installing windows on the drives in a regular 2 disk config and also in raid 0 array. from personal experience my boot times dropped from 39 seconds to 28 seconds and editing files in cubase sx are noticeably faster. dunno what the deal is with this review but techreport had a great review with multiple chipsets and raptors.

Doesn't cubase use huge files? That would be a best case scenario, and one where RAID0 will actually make sense.

The controller shouldn't make much difference for RAID-0 seeing as it's a very simple form of RAID, unlike for example RAID-5.
Unless Intel FUBAR'ed their RAID controller(which I doubt), I doubt there's going to be much difference with another consumer level(AKA, soft-hardware) controller.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I never got the big deal over RAID 0 speed... unless you're running a server or something, I've never found the speed difference to be noticable.
 

Trey22

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2003
5,540
0
76
Whew, was just about to drop the $ for two 74GB Raptors. For what I do (Battlefield 1942), map loading times would probably be better, but not worth the extra expense. Gracias for the article!

Now I can take those $200 and use it for... ? Well, not to worry, I'll put that money to damn good use, and no I'm not talking about taking the wife out for a nite on the town, lol. PC stuff man, PC STUFF!
 

edmundoab

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2003
3,223
0
0
www.facebook.com
just as I was about to consider doing raid -0 and anandtech says stay away from it.
I'm gonna stick to his advice for the sake of money too
 

Jalf

Junior Member
Jul 2, 2004
11
0
0
Originally posted by: LED
Hmmm not to knock your post but if I had a choice between 1 Faster HD with the same space as a slower 1 X2 @ a lesser price than i would go that route as well

Yes Raid0 is not twice as fast as IDE/SATA x2 but faster or equal non the less...prefer RAID5 myself

Nope, not neccesarily. Someone needs to brush up their knowledge of IO.

RAID0 means two things for performance:

1) Twice the bandwidth. Obviously, you can read or write from both drives simultanously, so you only need to do half as much on each drive.

2) Higher latency: Just as obvious. Instead of locating data on one disk, you need to locate it on both. Seek times on harddisks is already a huge bottleneck. Once the data is located, you can read/write in the order of 30-50 mb/s. Thats amazingly fast compared to how much you spent on seek time already. (Yeah, compared to everything else, it's slooow, I know that)

So, now you need to spend more time locating data, but the transfer goes faster. That is *no matter* which controller you use. Yes, a faster controller might mean less performance loss on the former, and more performance increase on the latter, but it doesnt' change the above.

So, now it should be really obvious. Everything that requires big sequential reads or writes (loading big (nonfragmented) files, writing database log files, or possibly loading Windows, can benefit from RAID.
You spend a bit longer locating the place to start reading/writing, but once there, you can double the transfer speed.

But normal desktop use isn't exactly characterized by sequential I/O's. Rather, that's a matter of thousands of small (and usually fragmented) files, which means more time spent searching the disk, which is slower with RAID, and less time spent on transfers (where RAID could be an advantage).

Before you mindlessly defend RAID, read up on on IO and disk performance in general. Yep, most people say it's faster, but that's because they don't look beyond the bandwidth improvements.

There's a reason why even people working with database tuning use RAID for data reduncancy only, and rarely for performance.
 

tr1kstanc3

Senior member
Sep 25, 2001
361
0
0
professional audio recording/editing benefits greatly from my raid 0 setup. while recording multiple audio tracks in 24bit/44hz in cubase sx you start to realize what bottlenecks you have in your system. having 32+ audio tracks playing back with realtime fx processing and recording simultaneously really puts a burden on your storage setup. each individual wav file takes up between 60-150mb. many of the forum users in sound on sound recommended the seagate 7200.7 series because of their excellent write speed and with a raid 0 of these drives my potential write speed has increased significantly. i dont know why the anandtech review focuses more on the read speed when i believe the major benefit of raid 0 is the write speed... who knows. i guess people are more concerned with how fast their games load rather than a workstation task at hand =P
 

sharkeeper

Lifer
Jan 13, 2001
10,886
2
0
LOL, RAID0 has its place. Too bad the majority of the users are not using it for what it was intended for, then point fingers or say it's useless or overrated. :roll:

Cheers!
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: shuttleteam
LOL, RAID0 has its place. Too bad the majority of the users are not using it for what it was intended for, then point fingers or say it's useless or overrated. :roll:

Cheers!

Well said.
 

LED

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,127
0
0
quote:
Originally posted by: LED
Hmmm not to knock your post but if I had a choice between 1 Faster HD with the same space as a slower 1 X2 @ a lesser price than i would go that route as well

Yes Raid0 is not twice as fast as IDE/SATA x2 but faster or equal non the less...prefer RAID5 myself



Nope, not neccesarily. Someone needs to brush up their knowledge of IO.

Someone needs to know how to quote IMHO

Vid and MutiM is what Raid likes along with Serving...
 

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
I've found that two drives on seperate channels is the way to go.

Unzipping to a seperate drive, installing from one drive to another, or any other circumstance where you need to read and write at the same time, two drives on seperate channels has always seemed faster than raid.

Not to mention when I want to wipe my os, its a lot easier and faster to install all my apps from that second drive.
 

pookie69

Senior member
Apr 16, 2004
305
0
0
Ive never really understood RAID properly, knowing only that you use multiple HDDs as opposed to one, either to help performance or as a backup device. THEN comes along this AnandTech article, claiming to have evaluated the function of RAID-0 arrays in the modern desktop PC and im like...

" I have a modern desktop PC, and I have been thinking about setting-up a RAID-0 array cos i hear it offers better performance BUT IVE NEVER BEEN SURE EXACTLY WHAT KINDA PERFORMANCE ... OMG... this article is the ANSWER TO MY PRAYS! YES!"

So off i go to read it with huge hopes and anticipation, and soon after having started to read it, guess the conclusion, but then continue to read the conclusion anyways with a somewhat heavy heart as i was hoping the article would be saying how great RAID-0 was and how we should all be running multiple HDDs.

NONETHELESS, great news or not, at least i {thought i} knew what was what now. So although somewhat saddened by the conclusion, i thought i knew the TRUTH, and so at least had closure

BUT THEN... all these ppl start bitching about how the article missed out this and that etc in the article comments, and how the intel RAID controller is pants and dedicated hardware controllers are better and should have been used to review, at the same time as advocates of the article claiming that Anand had in fact gotten it right, and it was about time someone put to rest the glorified RAID-0 array.

SIGH... now im totally confused, moreso than ever

Anyone else feel that way too, or is it just me in need of salvation???
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,211
3,623
126
Originally posted by: intrex
um yeah,

Hardware review contradiction
Welcome to Anandtech, Intrex!

I see absolutely no contradiction at all. The latest RAID article is in reference to the hundreds of posts and threads here all asking one question: "should I buy two 36 GB Raptors or one 74 GB Raptor". The article answers that quite well, one 74 GB Raptor is a better buy than two 36 GB Raptors.

But many people interpret this latest article as a thorough RAID 0 review. It isn't. Anandtech did a much more thorough ATA RAID article a while ago (and yes they included hardware vs software RAID data - software RAID 0 dominated over hardware RAID 0 at the time in Content Creation Winstone 2001).

Lets look at this latest article in more detail:

Benchmark / RAID 0 36 GB Raptors / single 36 GB Raptor / Speed boost using RAID 0
UT2004 level loading / 29.4 / 34.1 / 13.8% faster with RAID 0
Far Cry level loading / 40.6 / 41.1 / 1.2% faster with RAID 0
Sysmark overall / 211 / 204 / 3.4% faster with RAID 0
Sysmark overall internet / 235 / 230 / 2.2% faster with RAID 0
Sysmark overall office / 189 / 180 / 5.0% faster with RAID 0
Sysmark communciation office / 196 / 171 / 14.7% faster with RAID 0

I got tired typing, but you can see the pattern. RAID 0 with two 36 GB drives is faster in every case than the single 36 GB drive. Thus for a high end gaming system where reliability is not important, money is not important, but speed is critical then Anandtech is correct in recommending RAID 0.

But when comparing RAID 0 slow drives to a single fast drive, Anandtech is again correct that the single fast drive is the better option.

I see no contradiction at all.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |