3 HDDs RAID-0

[Alpha736]

I currently have 2 Western Digital Raptors in a RAID-0 (36.7GB 10,000RPM SATA-150). I use this partition to run my OS on and install/run applications and games from since it is a very fast drive. With games these days using 3-6GB on average I'm finding it hard to have more than a couple games installed at one time on this partition. So my need is more space, and I know I could go with 2 more 36.7GB raptors and double my drive space in a RAID-0 with 4 drives, but each drive is roughly 104 bucks on newegg. I really can't afford $200 dollars right now so I came thought, why not buy one drive and do a RAID-0 with 3 drives.

I'm fully aware of the risks of a RAID-0, and how those risks increase with the number of drives because of the higher chance of one of those drives failing; this is why I have a backup/imaging solution for this drive, and since it is only being used to install applications and the OS, if anything fails in the array all I lose is my settings.

The motherboard I am planning on implementing this on is an ASUS A8N-SLI Premium, and I plan to use the NV-RAID interface for these drives. My questions is, how stable will this be? I'm pretty sure 3 drives is possible in a RAID-0 but will this hardware support it? Will it be less stable than having an even number of drives?

Hopefully a 3 drive solution will work and an additional 36.7GBs can hold me over until I can afford a 4th drive. If anyone knows if this will work, please help. Thanks!

PS: Damn this array is going to be fast!

[defakto]

It will, but for the price of a single 36 gig raptor, you can get a larger drive that performs just as well.

[feigned]

Are those the only hard disks in the entire machine?

If not, put your paging file to another physical disk (doesn't matter what partition) away from where the games are installed and ran from. It made an absolutely huge difference for walking into the common area of IF in World of Warcraft. No more bullshit stuttering now...

If so...you'll see significant diminishing returns with every disk to add to a striped array. You'd be better off having a large storage disk for games and data and keeping Windows and other piddly apps away from that disk.

In short, don't waste your money on another 36GB Raptor. They're hot, noisy, and not much faster than a 7200rpm disk to begin with. If you can afford another $50, pick up the 74GB version and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Alpha736]

It will, but for the price of a single 36 gig raptor, you can get a larger drive that performs just as well.

The speed of a RAID-0 array increases with each disk you add, since each disk is only required to do half as much accessing with 2 drives, and with 3 drives it would be a third, and so on. So, buying a single big drive WILL NOT be as fast as any RAID-0 array, the speed advantages can be debated for my needs, but a RAID-0 array is always faster than any single drive. Since I already have 2 of these drives, and I don't want them to go to waste, I figure adding a 3rd, and eventually a 4th makes sense to me. It will give me more performance, and more space.

[Alpha736]

Are those the only hard disks in the entire machine?

If not, put your paging file to another physical disk (doesn't matter what partition) away from where the games are installed and ran from. It made an absolutely huge difference for walking into the common area of IF in World of Warcraft. No more bullshit stuttering now...

If so...you'll see significant diminishing returns with every disk to add to a striped array. You'd be better off having a large storage disk for games and data and keeping Windows and other piddly apps away from that disk.

In short, don't waste your money on another 36GB Raptor. They're hot, noisy, and not much faster than a 7200rpm disk to begin with. If you can afford another $50, pick up the 74GB version and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I do have 2 250GB drives I use for storage, so the only need for space on my raptor array is installed applications. I want my games to be installed on this fast array because it cuts loading times in half and it's also much easier to keep track of where things are installed because most games by default want to be installed in C:\Program Files\ or somewhere else on the system drive.

Also, thanks for the suggestion with the page file, I'll look into implementing that.

[unhappy_mage]

The speed of a RAID-0 array increases with each disk you add

buying a single big drive WILL NOT be as fast as any RAID-0 array, the speed advantages can be debated for my needs, but a RAID-0 array is always faster than any single drive.
Wrong, and wrong. The STR may increase, but you will always get *worse* latency. This means for gaming performance, a single drive (or a raid-1 array which has the opposite symptoms - not necessarily better STR, but lower latency possible) is best.

The increase in latency is because of the time it takes for the disk to rotate. The two sets of platters aren't in sync, so when disk A has already started reading data disk B has to wait a few ms to start as well. This means your application doesn't get the whole set of data until both disks have rotated far enough, bringing the average latency up.

My suggestion would be to get a 74gb raptor and use that as an independent drive. Leave Windows installed on the array, since it's already working there, and put games on the new raptor. Why a 74g one? They're a good deal faster than the older 36's, and it won't hurt to have the extra space.

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/150072 (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=150072&tm=33)

[Alpha736]

Wrong, and wrong. The STR may increase, but you will always get *worse* latency. This means for gaming performance, a single drive (or a raid-1 array which has the opposite symptoms - not necessarily better STR, but lower latency possible) is best.

The increase in latency is because of the time it takes for the disk to rotate. The two sets of platters aren't in sync, so when disk A has already started reading data disk B has to wait a few ms to start as well. This means your application doesn't get the whole set of data until both disks have rotated far enough, bringing the average latency up.

My suggestion would be to get a 74gb raptor and use that as an independent drive. Leave Windows installed on the array, since it's already working there, and put games on the new raptor. Why a 74g one? They're a good deal faster than the older 36's, and it won't hurt to have the extra space.

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/150072 (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=150072&tm=33)

My main reason for the RAID-0 array is to eliminate load times, such as the ones in battlefield that take forever. As far as I know the total latency of the array at the start of accessing does not effect this load time much negatively, ones the drives are synced up they will each be loading a division of the data depending on the number of drives, and the fact that each drive needs to load that much less makes the total load time less. Yes the latency will slow down short burst accessing, but with load screens it's different. Tell me if I'm wrong on this also though.

[unhappy_mage]

It varies by game - UT2003/4, for example, has a ton of little files that it loads rather than one archive. You'd have to run some tests to see which method your game uses.

If that's the case, though, you'll be best off with the high-capacity drive as your game disk - they have higher STRs than even a pair of old Raptors.

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/150072 (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=150072&tm=33)

[DougLite]

Clicky (http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/suite_v1.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=259&devID_1=249&devCnt=2) WD360GD was never tested on SR's TB4, so we'll have to make do with their TB3 results. Still the WD740GD demolishes the WD360GD by incredible margins. I'm getting rumblings of a revised WD740GD (FLC firmware) with even quicker seeks that extends the gap between the 73 and 36GB units even farther.

To the OP: I think you need to reassess your storage setup. A Hitachi Deskstar 7K500 or WD4000xx will deliver much better application level performance, as well more capacity, than any reasonable number of WD360GDs in RAID-0. The firmware, density, and seek performance is simply not there on WD360GD. If you stepped up to WD360GD from an older 160~250GB 8MB buffer 7200RPM ATA flagship, you most likely did see a boost in performance. However, 7200RPM drives have made enormous strides since the launch of the WD360GD over two and a half years ago, and WD has not changed the WD360GD at all in the same time frame. It is a simple fact that the WD360GD is obsolete. No number of them in RAID-0 will allow them to match the application level performance of the WD740GD, WD4000xx, or Hitachi DeskStar 7K500. Even drives like the WD2500KS, Hitachi DeskStar T7K250, and Maxtor xLxxxS0 drives will give outperform the WD360GD at least slightly, while solving your capacity problem and running much cooler and quieter, within the same price range. You are welcome to dismiss the data I have presented here, but the fact remains that WD360GD is obsolete.

[just2cool]

Perhaps I can offer some insight. I had 2x 36gb raptors in RAID0 myself and wanted more space as well, so I decided to go 3x 36gb RAID0.

Like others have said, your latency increases, and I've had problems getting awesome performance, but here are some benchmarks for you to decide whether or not it is worth it:

http://b2k.pnt.net/shots/atto3.jpg
And before you ask, no, I don't know why my read speed drops at 128.

System specs:
Athlon64 3500+ 939 (@ stock)
1GB dual channel DDR
MSI Neo2 Platinum (NF3 Ultra - using onboard NVRAID)
3x 36gb raptors, 16K stripe.

[illdklli]

i have 4 36gb raptors in RAID0 and its frickin fast. i dun care what these people say. my half-life 2, bf2, and f.e.a.r. load times are very short. don't even get me started with large file extraction. so much faster!