Does Raid 0 offer that much more performance?

[Rudager]

Does Raid 0 offer that much more performance? I have two drives in RAID 0 but I've heard it's also good to have two separate drives...one with the operating system on it...the other with the paging file and games on it...what do you think? should I get rid of the stripe?

 

[TeeJayHoward]

Trash the RAID. RAID-0 = higher sustained transfer rates at the cost of seek time.

Use one drive for OS, the other for paging and games, as you mentioned. RAID-0 can make your system slower, not faster, sometimes. This is a good example of one of those times.

You've got 2GB of RAM, so you'll rarely ever hit the paging file, but it's nice to have it on another drive just in case.

 

[E4g1e]

RAID 0 generally isn't needed with modern hard drives.

However, there are still a few single hard drives in existence which have extremely low sustained transfer rates by today's standards. Though modern single hard drives can sustain 60MB/s, there are a few out there that can't sustain even 10MB/s.

On the other hand, I would like to admit that modern single 7200rpm hard drives sustain such high transfer rates - at the expense of seek times. Today's 7200rpm hard drives, with few exceptions, have seek times as slow as that of the average 5400rpm hard drive of five years ago: about 11 ms (which translates into an average random access time of between 15 and 16 ms), manufacturers' seek time specs notwithstanding.

 

[[LYL]Homer]

I've been back and forth with RAID 0 and no-RAID in the last 4 years with IBM 60GXP & 75GXP, 80gb WD JB's, 200gb Seagate 7200.7, 36gb Raptors, and 74gb Raptors on 2 different Abit, 2 different Asus, and now a Shuttle XPC. Tried Promise, Silicon Image, and nVidia RAID controllers. I don't care what any benchmarks say - the system always feels sluggish whenever I have it configured without RAID 0. Also, I've tried one Raptor for the OS and the other dedicated to the pagefile, still sluggish.

I just ordered 2 Hitachi 250gb SATA 3.0gb/s drives since I need speed and capacity in my Shuttle SN25P, I think I'm finally dumping the Raptors (because of space, not speed).

I don't necessarily think that transfer speeds are much higher, but the responsiveness of the system is what it is all about. With the dreaded IBM Deathstars I had a RAID 0+1 (striped+mirror, 4 drives) and had the 4 original drives crap out within 6 months, then all 4 replacements too. That was a well documented fiasco with IBM and I haven't had a RAID array failure since, knock on wood. I do weekly backups for my data anyway.

 

[TeeJayHoward]

I don't necessarily think that transfer speeds are much higher, but the responsiveness of the system is what it is all about.

Placebo effect. The exact opposite is true. Responsiveness of the system is all about seek times. Which are INCREASED with RAID-0. For what it's worth, though... They're not increased by much. (0.4ms for the 74GB raptors in RAID-0 vs. not, thank you HDTach)

 

[djnes]

Placebo effect. The exact opposite is true. Responsiveness of the system is all about seek times. Which are INCREASED with RAID-0. For what it's worth, though... They're not increased by much. (0.4ms for the 74GB raptors in RAID-0 vs. not, thank you HDTach)

Factor in the much higher risk of data loss, and all you're left with is one easily debunked myth. The hype died a while ago, and it always amazes me how people still have RAID0 arrays. That damn placebo effect is contagious.

 

[dirtydr]

Yes it does offer higher performance... for a very narow range of applications. Apps not within that scope will see no increase and as others have said, a possible decrease in performance.

 

[[LYL]Homer]

I disagree, it's more than placebo effect. The hard disk subsystem has a more responsive nature to it that overcomes the access time. The start of actual data transfer may be slower because of the access time issue, but once data does transfer it does it quicker on small files and things like browsing the hard drive with Explorer.

Making these numbers up and I don't know how this really happens, but here's how I think it may quantify:

Single Raptor:

ms

5 access
40 read the file header
10 display results
===========
55 ms


RAID 0 Raptors

10 access
28 read file header
10 display results
============
48 ms



I know this is greatly simplified and wrong on the actual numbers, but it's just supposed to reflect something like browsing directories and not sustained data transfer.

To sum up, it's how the system accesses things that makes it feel different or, as I say, 'more responsive'.

 

[djnes]

It is truly a placebo effect when benchmarks are done showing some actual usage, proving that RAID0 arrays really don't offer anything in terms of performance. Why does this topic still have to be debated? It's done, dead, and over with. I used to have 2 Raptors in RAID0. I broke them up and now only use one, and I can say in terms of how it feels, and actual benchmarks, I have lost nothing in terms of performance. Add in another fact, the increased risk of data loss, and it becomes a no-brainer. It's been at least a year since this myth was completely debunked. It's buried and in it's grave, where it belongs.

 

[PaHick]

No offense dj , but theres alot of people who still believe in Raid0. I am one of them. This topic will never die IMO. We have been through this before. Anandtech/SR vs. Tweakers.net . Outside of this forum you'll still find plenty of people using(and enjoying) Raid0. Noone forum-wise argues against Raid0 more than this one. IMO everytime there was a discussion on this subject the previously stated reviews came flying out. The facts are this, you can have one group of users do benchmarks and tests and come up against Raid0, and another group come up for Raid0. Face it, its a never ending arguement.

 

[djnes]

No offense dj , but theres alot of people who still believe in Raid0. I am one of them. This topic will never die IMO. We have been through this before. Anandtech/SR vs. Tweakers.net . Outside of this forum you'll still find plenty of people using(and enjoying) Raid0. Noone forum-wise argues against Raid0 more than this one. IMO everytime there was a discussion on this subject the previously stated reviews came flying out. The facts are this, you can have one group of users do benchmarks and tests and come up against Raid0, and another group come up for Raid0. Face it, its a never ending arguement.

I'll agree it's never ending, but not because there's very much merit behind it. As mentioned above, 99% of the users, even on this forum, don't use their computer in the very small window of where RAID0 gives a small benefit. It is a fact, performance aside, that it increases the risk of losing data. Coming from a systems analysis standpoint, when you have very little, if any performance benefit for even a minute percentage of the users, but a very real increase in risk of data loss, you immediately turn your back to the system and move on. The data risk alone is enough reason to not use RAID0. Even before the debates start about performance. I've done a lot of search in some other forums, and this is the only one where it's still debated, you're right. All of the others I've seen or post on have all accepted the results. I've actually seen the [H]ardforums ridiculed on other boards for still debating this topic. Further proof is that many of the boutique system builders are moving away from RAID arrays in favor of a single fast drive. Looking at how fast single drives are right now, it's even more reason to not go with RAID0.

 

[E4g1e]

I'll agree it's never ending, but not because there's very much merit behind it. As mentioned above, 99% of the users, even on this forum, don't use their computer in the very small window of where RAID0 gives a small benefit. It is a fact, performance aside, that it increases the risk of losing data. Coming from a systems analysis standpoint, when you have very little, if any performance benefit for even a minute percentage of the users, but a very real increase in risk of data loss, you immediately turn your back to the system and move on. The data risk alone is enough reason to not use RAID0. Even before the debates start about performance. I've done a lot of search in some other forums, and this is the only one where it's still debated, you're right. All of the others I've seen or post on have all accepted the results. I've actually seen the [H]ardforums ridiculed on other boards for still debating this topic. Further proof is that many of the boutique system builders are moving away from RAID arrays in favor of a single fast drive. Looking at how fast single drives are right now, it's even more reason to not go with RAID0.

It's funny that you mentioned this, but I prefer two drives in all of my systems. You see, one of the disadvantages with a single ultra-large drive is the extremely long time needed to backup all of your files (it may take several months to back them all up and restore them all, given the snail-slow speed of even the fastest removable media). In addition, some apps - particularly those which rely on a swap file - simply work better when that swap file is located on a physical hard drive that's completely separate from the Windows drive. (Having the app's swap file and the OS on the same physical drive will slow down the performance of the app itself and contribute to severe fragmentation of the single hard drive.)

For those power users, then yes, two drives are recommended. RAIDing them both in RAID 0, however, isn't worth your time or trouble.

 

[PaHick]

I'll agree it's never ending, but not because there's very much merit behind it. As mentioned above, 99% of the users, even on this forum, don't use their computer in the very small window of where RAID0 gives a small benefit. It is a fact, performance aside, that it increases the risk of losing data.

As before we dont agree on the magnitude of risk. Drives are more reliable lately than ever. Besides, a backup regimen(we all do this right) takes care of data loss.

I've done a lot of search in some other forums, and this is the only one where it's still debated, you're right.

I think you misunderstood what I said. This is the only forum in which any talk of benefits are shot down. Im not going to go into detail here, theres a strong bias against Raid0 that you do not find in other forums. Your statement about other forums already accepting the resullts arent quite true, and you know this. Theres still alot of people using Raid0.

Further proof is that many of the boutique system builders are moving away from RAID arrays in favor of a single fast drive.

Your take on it is different than mine. The only reason IMO is cost. If your selling pc's , wuldnt it be cheaper for you to use one instead of two drives? Im not gonna get into debating this topic again. Like I said, its never-ending.

 

[djnes]

I'm sure a single, larger disk is cheaper than two somewhat smaller disks. Alienware, and others like them haven't ever been concerned about saving a few bucks, though. I'll also agree that drives in general have become much more reliable. But, it's a simple mathematical concept that if you're relying on two of them, you're still taking a big risk compared to just one. Two drives effectively doubles your chance of having one drive die. Regardless of how good each drive is, you're still taking a much bigger risk. It would be the equivalent of having one tire on your car go flat, but loosing the functionality of all 4 tires. If all tires depended on each other, when one goes, they'd all go.

You're also right about the back up factor. However, how many people, even on here maintain fully functional, up-to-date backups? 10%? 15%? We have 120,000 users at HP, and a back up solution that requires a single mouse click. I'd be surprised if 20% of all users take advantage of the function.

 

[DougLite]

I still only recommend RAID-0 for workstations, disk to disk backup, and content creation "scratch disks" In other scenarios, the modest performance boost certainly does not ouweigh the reduced reliability, increased driver complexity, complication of recovery, and increased cost. The doubling of cost alone is enough to make running RAID-0 on a desktop seem silly, let alone all of the other strikes against it.

For gamers, the money is better spent elsehwere. The cost of a second WD740GD will buy an extra GB of RAM, step up to a better video card, or step up from a fast single core proc to a modest dual core one, all of which will show much better return on investment than RAID-0. Even removing a second fairly large 7200RPM from a planned system will free up enough budget for any of those upgrades.

 

[E4g1e]

I still only recommend RAID-0 for workstations, disk to disk backup, and content creation "scratch disks" In other scenarios, the modest performance boost certainly does not ouweigh the reduced reliability, increased driver complexity, complication of recovery, and increased cost. The doubling of cost alone is enough to make running RAID-0 on a desktop seem silly, let alone all of the other strikes against it.

That's true - except that those power users don't have to use RAID-0. In fact, I use content-creation and video-editing software which relies on a scratch disk (swap file). In my particular case, then I can get along with two separate hard disks without RAID.

However, the single-drive solution is more sensible if you don't use any such software.

 

[Doctor X]

I for one use raid3 now. It has its disadvantages... but performance is not one of them. I get 92 MB/s sustained and burst of 105 MB/s. That is real close to the 133MB/s limit of the PCI bus. The only disadvantage I have noticed it doesnt like really small files. This is not that big of a deal though. I had a bad SATA cable and lost a drive. The best thing about this card is in degraded mode it is just as fast as raid3. Also, raid3 and raid0 are just as fast on this card. The other really kewl feature of this card is it is driverless.

anyways... have a good day

Doctor X

 

[roaf85]

Question: First off from my understanding it seems that RAID is only apparant in burst transfer speeds and I understand in the windows xp desktop environment for most of us it may not be useful day in to day out. My question is can RAID 0 speed up installations of programs and Transferring large files around the hard drive? I do not care about the loading and gaming performance.

 

[DougLite]

Yes, RAID-0 will work wonders there, especially if you use large 7200RPM drives with high density that have high transfer rates to begin with. Such drives include the Samsung SP P120s, Seagate Barracuda 7200.8, and Hitachi T7K250. You may see sustained transfer rates as high as 100MB/sec with two such drives in RAID-0.

RAID-0 for disk-to-disk copying is one of the truly good uses for it. (content creation scratch disks is another good use for it)

Remember to have your drivers ready to go along with a solid backup strategy before deploying RAID, and you will enjoy a nice boost in throughput