• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

2x raptors worth it?

A

Attean

Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
697
I dunno. That's a LOT for raid 0. Anyone have any experience here? Would it be worth it for dual raptors or would 2 regular hard drives in raid 0 eliminate the bottleneck as effectively?
 
If a stock XPpro setup booting in 13secs is worth it, then it is. If being the first to spawn in your fav online FPS game is worth it, then it is.
 
Depends what they will be used for. There are many MANY posts about this very subject
across the forums so I'm certain a quick search will give the answers you seek.

Being the first to spawn in an online game has much more to do with your connection and
servers you are going through than anything else.
 
2 raptors isnt worth it, just braging rights.......raid 0 doesnt help game preformence IIRC, just mirrors i believe?

id rather just use raptor as gaming/web surfing, other stuff on another hard drive.....

those 16meg cache hard drives own tho,


soulsaver
 
Raid 0 doesnt help much at all, the only thing it does for an average user is put data at risk..

Vote for moving this to the appropriate section :)
 
You basically cut your data reliability in half... If spawning first in a game or booting up Windows in 13 seconds is worth the lack of reliability then go for it. Although manufacturers claim a huge number for mean time between failure not all drives are made equal. That's why it's the mean time and not the average time.
 
soulsaver_8229 said:
2 raptors isnt worth it, just braging rights.......raid 0 doesnt help game preformence IIRC, just mirrors i believe?

id rather just use raptor as gaming/web surfing, other stuff on another hard drive.....

those 16meg cache hard drives own tho,


soulsaver
Click to expand...

yeah that's kinda what I was thinking...

I second your motion saturnine2!

Thanks for all the feedback anyway guys! Need to rename that damned section "Hard drives"! :)
 
Welcome to my world. RAID is a hot button topic here, mainly because I've made a career out of battling the misinformation about RAID (not just RAID-0, but all RAID levels). You may want to start [thread=952998]here[/thread].

RAID-0 does offer some performance benefit in certain applications. If you edit large pictures or movies, a RAID-0 scratch disk is a huge performance boost. RAID-0 does offer a boost in bootup performance as well, because of the high queue depths during XP bootup. RAID-0 also scales well in certain games like WoW that store their data in a handful of large data files that are accessed linearly.

Sounds good, right? Well, where does RAID-0 fall short? The answer is in value. You are looking at spending $350 for two Raptors in RAID-0, as opposed to $150-180 for a single Raptor. You get a boost in some applications. You accept reduced reliability. You accept that performance won't change a lick in most of your applications.

Let's look at increasing your budget on another component. $180 to $350 is the difference between a 6600GT and a 6800GT - which will increase performance in ALL of your games. $180 to $350 is the difference between a 3200+ Venice and a 3800+ Dual core X2. Ask anybody who has an X2 if they would go back to a single core rig. The $180 you would spend on an extra Raptor could go towards a 300GB storage drive and cover part of the cost of going to 2GB of RAM. Running Raptors in RAID-0 is simply not cost effective for gamers. If you want the finest performance available in a hard drive, your search begins and ends with Fujitsu MAU. There is not an ATA drive out there that can touch it, RAID-0 or not.
 
I agree with DougLite. RAID0 really isn't justified for that price IMO. If you're really deadset on buying a second, I'd say that RAID1 is more justified, as that'll protect your data should one of the drives fail.

I'm considering doing that myself :p
 
I hate to sound like I'm nitpicking Ryan, but RAID-1 does NOT protect data, it protects uptime.
DougLite said:
...I've made a career out of battling the misinformation about RAID (not just RAID-0, but all RAID levels). ...
Click to expand...
If you review some of the threads in the past week here to the effect of "Help! My RAID is dead!" you'd find that in most of the recent cases, the data loss has been caused by [thread=761272]Corruption[/thread] rather than the failure of the physical disks, which is the ONE cause among MANY potential sources of data loss that RAID-1 protects against. Once again, RAID-1 is an uptime tool, not a data protection tool. It still has a single point of failure (a single file system for both drives in the array) meaning it can do NOTHING to protect data against viruses, power supply blow ups, corruption, your own errors/accidents, or natural disaster.

I suggest that you (and everyone relying on RAID-1) consider backup strategies, at least to a separate file system such as a different comp or external drive. Ideally, backup to data that is stored in a different physical location, like on DVD or tape.
 
Well, in all fairness, I qualified it by saying that it protects you if a drive fails. That says nothing about data corruption ;)
 
DougLite,

Do you think Raid 1 is any more or less effective at "protecting data" than just copying your data to a second drive from time to time (thus eliminating the "auto-copy" of corrupted data)?

I have two 120GB drives mirrored, and I'm wondering if I should break that array down and just seek some other solution. (I already back up my most important files... digital photos... to CD/DVD.)

I'm also wondering, does "deleting" a RAID 1 array affect the data on the drives, or can I safely delete the array and then just have both drives available for use (after formatting one of them)?

Jason
 
Having two separate file systems on two independent disks will make your data much more resistant to corruption, viruses, and your own error. RAID is every simple, as it handles fault tolerance autoamtically, but having one file system for all members of the array makes the data on a RAID array vulnerable to a wide variety of risks that are not caused by hardware failure, so RAID-1 is significantly less effective than two separate drives at protecting data - actually, RAID-1 does not protect data at all, it only protects uptime. I'll say this any chance I get - already twice in this thread :D

You should be able to break a RAID-1 array and simply relocate the drives as you see fit.
 
Nice post there Doug. :)
How would you compare RAID-5 to RAID-1 far as corruption resistance goes?
 
RAID-5 is equally bad at preventing corruption. Once again, a RAID-5 array only has one file system, so if it that file system is destroyed or dmaged, the data is gone - even if the physical disk(s) holding it are still runnign perfectly normally.
 
Raid 1 and 5 and 10 make sense in certain situations. I sometimes prefer a realtime mirroring application on a seperate drive though for the above reasons.

Most of our customers want raid 10, so i setup raid 10 for them. Expensive and reliable, but by no means failsafe.
 
I just dont get the paranoia over "reliability". The damn drives are battleships, after all they are ENTERPRISE level, right? :D But more importanthly we all (hopefully) have imaging software to backup and protect our installations, so anything fails it is a snap to reinstall.

As for the value merits, 2x36G getting them on sale at Fry's is $69x2.... HUGE value, paying $125 each at NewEgg is less of a value, but still worth it to me.

So much so I'd love to get 2 MORE 36G Raptors for a 4x Raid0, but am torn because the second I do, they'll release a SATAII version and Ill be pissed.

If they released a SATAII version of Raptors, the performance would be SO far beyond the average drive, the "value" would be enhanced considerably. They choose not to because cheap Raptors would embarrass thier enterprise SCSI drives.

My drives have been running in raid0 for 1.5 YEARS now everyday, wher eis the "reliabilityZ" issue? My 2x80G Maxtors that were in raid0 for the 1.5 YEARS prior to that are now serving seperately in 2 other PC's and no sign of failure is showing on any of them.

The "reliability" concern over raid0 is on a level of paranoia like the rumors that "the NOrleans chamber of commerce blew up the levy's to clear out the poor people". Silly, plain and simple.

As for usage, TRY IT, see if it helps your usage. fast boot up I like. And in my FarCry online play, and AArmy online it helps in a clearly measurable manner, as Ive said my SPAWN time at map changes is almost 2X running off a single drive in FCry, and I LIKE IT!!! :D

Besides, I thought people did stuff here just because they were [H]ARD.
 
DougLite said:
RAID-5 is equally bad at preventing corruption. Once again, a RAID-5 array only has one file system, so if it that file system is destroyed or dmaged, the data is gone - even if the physical disk(s) holding it are still runnign perfectly normally.
Click to expand...

Thanx for the quick responce Doug.
It was my understanding that RAID-5 was more resistant to data loss because the parity
information is striped across the disk array. Then again what do I know?
 
Susquehannock said:
Thanx for the quick responce Doug.
It was my understanding that RAID-5 was more resistant to data loss because the parity
information is striped across the disk array. Then again what do I know?
Click to expand...


Actually Raid5 and raid 10 (or referred to as 1+0) are the 2 most reliable raid levels you can have due to your explanation above. There is no doubt that in a cruicial uptime server environment Raid 5 (and to a certain degree raid 10 due to it's enormous cost) is the best choice....
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
If they released a SATAII version of Raptors, the performance would be SO far beyond the average drive, the "value" would be enhanced considerably. They choose not to because cheap Raptors would embarrass thier enterprise SCSI drives.
Click to expand...

*laughs*

The slow spot in hard drives is not the SATA-I setup - Most drives out there cannot even come close to hitting the 150MB/s barrier - Raptors included. So increasing the barrier to 300MB/s wouldn't help at all.

And there's no way the raptors can touch my MAU. Now, if they increased the cache size to 16MB, added some of those nifty algorithms to the firmware, and increased the speed to 15,000RPM instead of a measley 10,000RPM... It'd have a chance. THAT'S something to embarass their enterprise SCSI drives with. But, then again, you basicly WOULD have an enterprise SCSI drive - Just with a different connector.

Also, a note on the reliability issue. Yeah, it's twice as likely to fail... Okay. But if you had a 99.999% success rate, then twice as likely to fail means 99.998%, not 49.999%.
 
That's enough gentlemen. - DL

1) 36GB Fujitsu MAU - $171 - 73GB goes for $381. Pricey yes, but not >$1000

2) Fujitsu MAU schooling every drive on the market on what fast desktop storage performance is all about.

A 16MB buffer, 73GB/platter, 10,000RPM Raptor would be within striking distance of MAU, but would most likely still fall short. Any more Raptor fans out there? Anyone? I'd suggest that you try to stay factual in your statements. If Fujitsu stuck a 16MB buffer on the MAU and made some slight firmware tweaks, you can bet its lead over everything else would be even greater.
 
Well, if we're talking aboiut Fujitsu MAU scsi harddrives, then, since we're talking raid, you need at least 2 of them plus the controller. Good luck doing all this way udner $1000.

I said "that's enough." I try not to get mad very often, but I will not have members throwing one sentence posts with :rolleyes: at each other. - DL
 
Just for the record, i

a) posted my answer one minute after yours....chances are that i was typing my answer when you posted yours.

b) moderator or not, but the discussion has been civil without personal attacks so far. Not sure why you think you have to shut people up if they simply discuss things in a "moderate" manner. Not even talking about you saying you get "angry" about it. A little over the top imho.
 
ScYcS said:
Actually Raid5 and raid 10 (or referred to as 1+0) are the 2 most reliable raid levels you can have due to your explanation above. There is no doubt that in a cruicial uptime server environment Raid 5 (and to a certain degree raid 10 due to it's enormous cost) is the best choice....
Click to expand...

So I was right about RAID-5? First time for everything. :D
 
DougLite said:
Having two separate file systems on two independent disks will make your data much more resistant to corruption, viruses, and your own error. RAID is every simple, as it handles fault tolerance autoamtically, but having one file system for all members of the array makes the data on a RAID array vulnerable to a wide variety of risks that are not caused by hardware failure, so RAID-1 is significantly less effective than two separate drives at protecting data - actually, RAID-1 does not protect data at all, it only protects uptime. I'll say this any chance I get - already twice in this thread :D

You should be able to break a RAID-1 array and simply relocate the drives as you see fit.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for the direct response to my question. I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread. Personally, the only data I've ever lost was due to hardware failure... I had two IBM Deskstar fail on me (one 45, one 60). Anyway, I know this is a thread about Raid 0 value, so I have a related question. A 73GB Raptor is similiar in cost to two 80GB drives (like 7200.7s). Would RAID 0 (for OS/non-valuable data only) of two of those be preferable to a single Raptor for a normal desktop user (gamer), perhaps one who does some video editting and large photo editting? I realize this might not be a black and white answer, but perhaps you've seen evidence one way or another? Anandtech's RAID 0 article only compared the single Raptor to RAID 0 (using two Raptors), in which case there was no noticeable improvement of single user performance.
 
I have 4 36GB raptors, 2 74GB raptors, and 2 180GB deskstars, will be doing benches on various configs in the near future

4x36 raid 0
4x36 raid 0+1
2x74 raid 0
2x74 raid 1

2x180 raid 0
2x180 raid 1

Should be interesting.
 
ScYcS said:
Well, if we're talking aboiut Fujitsu MAU scsi harddrives, then, since we're talking raid, you need at least 2 of them plus the controller. Good luck doing all this way udner $1000.
Click to expand...

SCSI is not as expensive as most people think, especially if you buy used. I see Fujitsu MAU drives below $150 quite frequently and a SCSI controller will be well under $100 unless you want some really nice hardware raid card with onboard cache.
 
GO EV!!!

Doug, I agree....and like you MAU's, and the reason WD wont make a SATAII 16mb 15K drive is they like making big$$ with companies buying drives at "enterprise" prices :D

But for us regualr peeps, the SATAII option would be better than SCSI because all the new gen MB's are coming with SATAII built in, not SCSI.

If there was a reasonable PCIe x1? x2? SCSI controller then I might consider it, but the controllers are PCI-X for the hardcore stuff, of no use with NForce4 board, and frankly PCIe esp as say x8 in the second SLI connector would seriously CRUSH PCI-X in use... 1.6Gbps. So the "enterprise" world is WAY behind the curve on elements of system design.

I dont think any SCSI setup out there could beat a 4x SATAII 15K 16MB cache raptor raid0 on a simple NForce4 SLI-DR motherboard....esp with an X2 A64 so one of the CPU's can handle the IO overhead while you GAME away :D

Oh well, fantasy's only, WD etc wont ever do any of it.... unimaginative lazy worthless bastid all :mad:
 
If you are looking for RAID0 I agree with the rest of hte group, go with a single 15k SCSI drive, they are second to none.

Hell i went from 2 15k SCSI (Cheetah's) in RAID0 to a single drive. but then again my single drive is only beat by the Maxtor Atlas 15k II 147 GB drive but it goes down fighting. (this is based on information from storage review, the MAU is better at somethings worse at others).
 
Attean said:
I dunno. That's a LOT for raid 0. Anyone have any experience here? Would it be worth it for dual raptors or would 2 regular hard drives in raid 0 eliminate the bottleneck as effectively?
Click to expand...

Because we're (We being me, of course :) ) going a bit off track again, I thought I'd respond to the original quote, and summarize everything I've said so far. It's my personal opinion that RAID-0 has little or no benefits in the desktop environment. I believe (and have no evidence to back up) that a single raptor would be faster that two "normal" drives in RAID-0 in almost every situation. Two raptors in RAID-0 would be faster, I suppose. However, a single modern 15K SCSI drive (I'd recommend the MAU) should be faster than the RAID-0 setup of raptors, and about the same price. Once more, I have no evidence to back up the speed claim.

However, I should also note that it's a truely rare occasion when the hard disk is the bottleneck for a system. (Average desktop usage)

Would someone mind sending me a couple HDTach screenshots of their raptors, in and out of RAID? I would appreciate it.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Doug, I agree....and like you MAU's, and the reason WD wont make a SATAII 16mb 15K drive is they like making big$$ with companies buying drives at "enterprise" prices :D
Click to expand...
Companies are not buying these drives, end-users are. The Raptor has still not caught on in the enterprise market as far as I know and I really doubt it will anytime soon. The reason they don't make a 15k Raptor is because there is not a market for one right now. They have no competition for the 10k drive yet so why bother releasing a new model?

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
But for us regualr peeps, the SATAII option would be better than SCSI because all the new gen MB's are coming with SATAII built in, not SCSI.
Click to expand...
SCSI has never been recommended for normal users and SATAII does not change that.

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
If there was a reasonable PCIe x1? x2? SCSI controller then I might consider it, but the controllers are PCI-X for the hardcore stuff, of no use with NForce4 board, and frankly PCIe esp as say x8 in the second SLI connector would seriously CRUSH PCI-X in use... 1.6Gbps. So the "enterprise" world is WAY behind the curve on elements of system design.
Click to expand...
The extra bandwidth of PCIE does not allow it to "crush" a PCI-X setup. I don't even think there are any arrays out there that can saturate the bandwidth of a PCI-X slot much less PCIE. Total bandwidth available is not a good indicator of performance. The enterprise world will adopt PCIE when it needs to. I think PCI-X will continue to last them for a little while.
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
I dont think any SCSI setup out there could beat a 4x SATAII 15K 16MB cache raptor raid0 on a simple NForce4 SLI-DR motherboard....esp with an X2 A64 so one of the CPU's can handle the IO overhead while you GAME away :D
Click to expand...
Trust me, it's quite possible. By the time Western Digital creates a 15k Raptor drive (if they do) there will be better performers in the SCSI realm. SCSI raid controllers are also quite a bit more advanced than the onboard Nforce4 raid chipset and can make use of onboard memory as cache improving disk performance dramatically. I don't quite understand your comment about an X2 because a Raid-0 array does not involve much CPU calculations like a Raid-5 setup would. Most high-end raid cards actually have their own processors onboard to handle things like that anyway. Finally, that fictional Raptor setup would likely be a waste for gaming anyway because is has been shown repeatedly that Raid-0 does not affect most game level loading times much at all.
 
feigned said:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=100099-1 - $171
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816118018 - $177

Does just over $500 interest you at all?

MAU > *
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah, going with 36GB drives. I don't know about you, but 36GB nowadays is next to nothing. If we take a look at the halfway decent sized 70GB drives, we are rapidly approaching the $1000 mark with controller. And that was what i was talking about.

I, personally, could not justify paying this much for performance that in a personal computer is probably measurable but hardly detectable in every day usage. Even $500 for 72GB in total is way out of hand imho. I do see the advantages for this kind of drive, this kind of performance etc., but for sure i don't see it in the home computer area.

2 Raptors (if you take the only viable option performace and size wise) will go for around $150 each. For around $300 you have around 150GB of storage. The performance is good on these drives. They might not perform as well as MAU drives, but they sure perform well. For $250 more i would get half the size in MAU. To get equal size i need the already mentioned $1000. $300 compared to $1000 is huge. Is the difference really worth $700 in a home computer environment?

Seriously now.

BTW, i would personally also not buy two 74GB raptors (again)....that just as a side note. I rather have one Raptor and a huge drive for storage on it's side. I tried the Raptor raid 0 option and it was, by any means, not anything to write home about. That being said, i own one raptor now (sold the other one) and i'm happy with it. Would i buy one again? I don't know. A well performing 7200rpm drive will probably do as well. The cost/performance ratio is simply not good enough for a home environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top