3x 74gb ADFD Raptors on a EX4350 (what array config?)

[I(illa Bee]

Ok, I have 3x 74gb ADFD raptors that I want to put to good use since I cant seem to sell them for enough money to stomach. The box there going in is a AM2, 4gb RAM, Vista 32 bit, 8800gtx, Promise SuperTrak EX4350 RAID controller. Just the OS, a few apps, and my games will go on the array. This box is just for gaming right now.


So, with that said, should I go RAID 5 or RAID 0? I guess the RAID 0 would be the fastest.. but yea what would you do with them?

[protias]

I guess the RAID 0 would be the fastest.. but yea what would you do with them?

Not necessarily. At times (R)aid 0 is actually slower than single disks. Personally, I'd keep them all separate.

[I(illa Bee]

At what times?

[protias]

At what times?

There are no set times, but many here on the forum have had problems with RAID 0 being much slower than single disk usage. unhappy_mage and drizzt81 are two such people. I would think Madwand would have also done this test.

[I(illa Bee]

ohh ok. A few members havening problems is hardly anything to say its slower that a single disk.

I have been using RAID 0 for years, While I agree its pretty pointless, and risky. I would not say its slower. Especially with RAID specific drives and a nicer controller. :)

besides, its easier to manage as one big drive.

[tuskenraider]

Doing multiple tests of app launches, file opening, bootup, I never lost any speed from RAID0, though there were many instances I gained nothing. This was more RAID chipset dependant than anything, I found.

[protias]

Ah yes, tusken is another one who knows Raid 0 very well.

[I(illa Bee]

Ah yes, tusken is another one who knows Raid 0 very well.

He also said he never lost any speed over it (in other words, its not slower than single drives)

He also said chipset could have been holding him back.

[I(illa Bee]

I guess what I want to know is, will RAID 5 be slower than RAID 0 in a 3 disk config.

[tuskenraider]

He also said he never lost any speed over it (in other words, its not slower than single drives)

He also said chipset could have been holding him back.My VIA KT400, K8T800 and NF2 setups showed 10-15% improvement in things noted above. It wasn't until I ran this NF4 setup, that I got no real benefits and stopped using it for now. RAID5 will definately be slower in writing, and most likely reading as well than RAID0.

[protias]

Raid 5 is generally slower. In addition, you don't want to boot of a Raid 5 config, it becomes even slower than a Raid 0 config.

[thebeephaha]

Raid 5 is pretty fast at reads for me, but writes are 3x slower than my Raid 0... But it really all depends on the raid controller, a good hardware Raid 5 would most likely put my software Raid 5 to shame.

[axan]

if you want to raid those drives then use raid 0, raid5 without good hardware controller is really slow and not worth the effort for anything other then simple storage

[I(illa Bee]

Thanks guys. I'm fine with RAID 0, it dose everything I want it to do, and should be pretty fast in my config. I do fully understands to issue with data loss on RAID 0.

owe.. not I have to reinstall vista.. and give it 2 weeks to speed up! lol

[Ockie]

You are not going to gain any performance from using Raid 0 on the setup vs running it as a single disk. It has a lot to do with the configuration, hardware, and applications you intend to use on it.


Anyways, you have 3 drives, you have a controller, and you are bored... live on the edge and go Raid 0. It should be faster than R5 in your situation.

[I(illa Bee]

The other thing is I really have nothing to do with the drives. I could sell them (for nothing what there worth) And buy a nice larger drive (say a 7200.10 500?) but I don't like keeping my data on my OS Disk. And I already have 500gb drives for data and backup.

So if I bought a large drive for the OS it would be a waste, as I only use about 80gb for the OS and apps/games. Might as well keep the raptors

I just don't want to waste them... I might also RAID 0 2 of them and keep one as a backup in case one dies

[Ockie]

The other thing is I really have nothing to do with the drives. I could sell them (for nothing what there worth) And buy a nice larger drive (say a 7200.10 500?) but I don't like keeping my data on my OS Disk. And I already have 500gb drives for data and backup.

So if I bought a large drive for the OS it would be a waste, as I only use about 80gb for the OS and apps/games. Might as well keep the raptors

I just don't want to waste them... I might also RAID 0 2 of them and keep one as a backup in case one dies


R0 all 3 of them, if one dies, recreate to a 2 drive R0

[I(illa Bee]

R0 all 3 of them, if one dies, recreate to a 2 drive R0

lol thats ture! I didn't think about it like that.

I do want a new zalmen 8700 for my v300. I could just sell on for 60-70 and buy that!

hmmmm....

[Ockie]

Let me know if you sell, I may be interested in one or a couple for my projects.

[protias]

He also said he never lost any speed over it (in other words, its not slower than single drives)

He also said chipset could have been holding him back.
Ya, he also said he didn't gain any noticeable speed either :p
Raid 5 is pretty fast at reads for me, but writes are 3x slower than my Raid 0... But it really all depends on the raid controller, a good hardware Raid 5 would most likely put my software Raid 5 to shame.

Yes, I have an 8x320 Seagate 7200.10 in Raid 5 on a Highpoint 2320. HDTach scores were very nice for reads. Typical results for me were about 170Mbps. My write speeds are another story, but that is the nature of Raid 5. It isn't meant to be fast, it is meant to stay online. ;)