Best drive setup for gaming/encoding...

R

RpM63

n00b
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
15
Hello all...
... I have 2-100gb Sata drives that I have setup with Raid 0 right now with xp2. What is the best configuration (as far as performance goes) to set these drives up for gaming and video encoding? I've read that two separate drives - 1st for OS and the 2nd for data is a good way to go. Does this mean all programs would be installed on the 1st and games/data would be installed on the 2nd? And when encoding the original file on 1st and the encode on the 2nd?

Am I on the right track here or is my current Raid array or possibly a striped volume a more efficient setup?

Should I be concerned with partitions at all?

Also, when reformatting, does changing the allocation unit size have any effect or should it just be left at default?

Thanks.....RpM
 
IMHO, the only major disadvantages to a Raid setup is the increased complexity and the increased chance of array failure as either hard drive dieing will take down the array and wipe all the data.

Raid 0 is a striped array. Half the data for each byte is written to each drive. That doubles the data through put of the array, but will not increase seek time. Raid 0 is the least secure form of Raid, so any non replaceable data must be backed up.

On the system I just assembled, I considered Raid, but went with a single 500 gig drive. I put XP in the first 100gig partition, Vista in the second 100 gig partition, and made one275 gig local data partition. I also run a 500 gig Raid 1 Nas box for all my music, photos, and por..... er movies. I will install any games or whatever to the data partition if they give me a choice.

I have run Raid 0 in the past, but I don't find the added performance is worth dealing with the negatives. You will find others who swear it's the best thing since canned spaghetti. Your choice.

Don

/Edit/ I have always left the allocation unit size alone. Again, benchmark junkies can tune it for a slight improvement, but I don't feel its worth the hassle to experiment. /Edit/
 
DonDon said:
I have run Raid 0 in the past, but I don't find the added performance is worth dealing with the negatives. You will find others who swear it's the best thing since canned spaghetti. Your choice.
Click to expand...

I would agree. When I built my PC I ordered two raptors to put into Raid 0. I had to slip stream the raid drivers into my XP install only to find out one of the drives was DOA. I installed the OS on the working drive and RMA'ed the dead one. When I received another drive I reinstalled again and got Raid 0 working (for some months) until another drive went bad. I just said F it and use only one drive now. I honestly can't tell the performance difference between the two setups. In short, you probably don't need Raid 0.
 
RpM63 said:
I've read that two separate drives - 1st for OS and the 2nd for data is a good way to go. Does this mean all programs would be installed on the 1st and games/data would be installed on the 2nd? And when encoding the original file on 1st and the encode on the 2nd?
Click to expand...
Right, that's the way to go.

Separate drives delivers about 20% better performance than RAID0 in the video editing applications I use.
 
i know people have had problems with raid 0 but i have been running 3 36gb raptors in raid 0 for 4 years and have yet to have an issue caused from raid 0. also notice i have a storage drive for my important stuff that is backed up to dvd.


now on the other hand a buddy of mine had a drive fail on him in raid 0 but having a drive fail will give you the same result in raid 0 or not in raid0.
 
now on the other hand a buddy of mine had a drive fail on him in raid 0 but having a drive fail will give you the same result in raid 0 or not in raid0.
Click to expand...

I never had a drive fail on my previous Raid setups, but I did have a controller go belly up. The array prolly would have been usable if I had wanted to get a new control board, but I just reloaded windows from scratch on one of the disks.

but i have been running 3 36gb raptors in raid 0 for 4 years and have yet to have an issue caused from raid 0.
Click to expand...

You are a brave person, daring the hard drive gremlins to come visit you like that! Did you knock on your desktop while you were typing that.

i have a storage drive for my important stuff that is backed up to dvd
Click to expand...

Smart. 2 drives in Raid 0 simply doubles (roughly) the chance that the array will fail. You may run for 10 years with no problems. It could die tomorrow. But my single drive is less than half as likely to die as your 3 drive array. (The system I am typing this on has a 36 gig Raptor.)

When I was researching computer manufacturers a few months ago, I found 1 vendor that flat out refused to do Raid 0 anymore due to the much higher than normal failure rate on those systems. They flat out said on their website that if you insist on Raid0, take your business elsewhere.

All I am saying is if you do not mind the negatives, and want that extra bit of performance, have at it.

Don

Don
 
Thanks guys for all the wisdom...I have a better understanding now. Since I've already been running with the Raid 0 I think I'll give the 2 separate drive setup a try. KenF says he sees a 20% better performance with video editing. Maybe I'll see a bit of improvement with gaming as well (less lagging in games like Crysis perhaps?) I guess I won't know unless I try, right? I'm running an old system so every little bit will help. I'll drop back by after the switch to give results for those who may be interested.
 
KenF says he sees a 20% better performance with video editing
Click to expand...

To see that, I would think you would have to be reading from one drive and then writing the results to the second drive. Unless you have a really crappy controller, you would normally see a modest performance increase with Raid 0 compared to a single drive.

Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top