• 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.

noob RAID question

S

soorma07

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
78
my bad for re posting if this has been done

but people keep telling me i will get no gain from taking my 2 250 gig WD250KS n running them in RAID 0 but i def want all my space n i mean y wouldn't i wanna run RAID 0?

i mean i would like a performance gain for the work of doing RAID will there be one?
 
soorma07 said:
my bad for re posting if this has been done

but people keep telling me i will get no gain from taking my 2 250 gig WD250KS n running them in RAID 0 but i def want all my space n i mean y wouldn't i wanna run RAID 0?

i mean i would like a performance gain for the work of doing RAID will there be one?
Click to expand...

You don't want to run raid 0 because if one drive tanks the whole thing goes down.

You're not going to get any space increase having them in raid 0 over just using both, or linking them in a jbod.
 
hello thanx for the quick response

i'm not worried about a drive failing because seriously what is the chance because i have worked on many hard drive many old n none have ever failed n waht is failing jus like stop working

but will there be a speed increase due to the striping n also what strip size should i use?
 
soorma07 said:
hello thanx for the quick response

i'm not worried about a drive failing because seriously what is the chance because i have worked on many hard drive many old n none have ever failed n waht is failing jus like stop working

but will there be a speed increase due to the striping n also what strip size should i use?
Click to expand...

You're lucky, I've had plenty of hd's crap out over the years.

I've never run raid 0, I looked into and was told by a lot of people that the speed increase isn't really worth it.
 
hmm ic is there anyone who has tests or bechmarks that say RAID 0 will help or is it just really a way for me to get 2 x 250 to make 1 x 500 gig HD?
 
soorma07 said:
hmm ic is there anyone who has tests or bechmarks that say RAID 0 will help or is it just really a way for me to get 2 x 250 to make 1 x 500 gig HD?
Click to expand...

In the meantime investigate JBOD - Just a Bunch Of Disks. It's like the opposite of partitioning - it adds to volumes together so the computer sees it as one.

I don't understand why you would want 1x 500 over 2x 250's, though.
 
tru i mean it really doesn't matter for 1 x 500 i was jus wondering if that would be all RAID would do for me i may look into JBOD but idk i'd rather run 2 x 250 than do that

RAID has to gimme sum sort of performance increase though rite? because the striping has to allow for faster read time rite?
 
RAID0 will may or may not give you a performance increase; it will depend on the application.
 
is it going to be sooo slight that i might as well not hassle myself or is it worth the efforth for the increase?
 
soorma07 said:
is it going to be sooo slight that i might as well not hassle myself or is it worth the efforth for the increase?
Click to expand...
It depends on the application. I do database work; I throw 100 gigabyte files around all day. I couldn't live without RAID0 on my work drives--for functionality, not even for performance.

Do you do database work? Maybe you have similar needs. Or maybe not.

How much of an improvement do you think is "worth the effort"? For some people, that's 50% faster at a minimum. For others, it's 1% faster.

Do you just want to do it for the experience? Then do it anyway and learn something.

This is the kind of question you can only answer for your own bad self. It's like you're asking us what you should have for dinner. We can't tell if you like suhi more, or need a big thick burger.
 
mikeblas said:
Do you just want to do it for the experience? Then do it anyway and learn something.
Click to expand...

i'll prolly just do it for the experience and hope for a lil improvement but i wish i knew more about what exactly raid 0 was doing could someone please point me to a thread that will help me out?
 
I found RAID 0 to be slower then not having raid at all

I have 2 seagate 200GB 7200.8 HDs in my server and they use to get 50MB/s in HD Tach.

When i would download a file from my server it would give me 32MB/s on my Gigabit lan..

now:

I setup the 2 harddrives on my server using RAID 0 on my intel 945 chipset RAID matrix controller. HD Tach states I get 96MB/s. However, when i now transfer files, the speeds dips alot to the 10MB/s range.
 
mjz_5 said:
I found RAID 0 to be slower.

I have 2 seagate 200GB 7200.8 HDs in my server and they use to get 50MB/s in HD Tach.

When i would download a file from my server it would give me 32MB/s on my Gigabit lan..

now:

I setup the 2 harddrives on my server using RAID 0 on my intel 945 chipset RAID matrix controller. HD Tach states I get 96MB/s. However, when i now transfer files, the speeds dips alot to the 10MB/s range.
Click to expand...
What is it that you're comparing?
 
mikeblas said:
What is it that you're comparing?
Click to expand...

I Think he's using the the download speed as a comparison, which to me is nutz.

Looking at those HD Tach results probably means your hard disks were running faster in raid 0, However because you were trusting download speeds means nothing, the reason could be very well linked to RAID (Cluster size etc...) or even CPU load were you doing much when downloading, you could have been subject to other things Like playing a song or watching a movie.

download speeds like network problems are notoriously hard to trace and diagnose and running a download over local lan means nothing to harddisk speed let alone the overall speed of your riad array.
 
jnex26 said:
I Think he's using the the download speed as a comparison, which to me is nutz.

Looking at those HD Tach results probably means your hard disks were running faster in raid 0, However because you were trusting download speeds means nothing, the reason could be very well linked to RAID (Cluster size etc...) or even CPU load were you doing much when downloading, you could have been subject to other things Like playing a song or watching a movie.

download speeds like network problems are notoriously hard to trace and diagnose and running a download over local lan means nothing to harddisk speed let alone the overall speed of your riad array.
Click to expand...

But, other than making the 2 HDs linked using RAID 0, what other system changes are there? None. So if network speeds decrease, and the only change was making the 2 7200.8 HDs to RAID 0, then RAID 0 is the problem..

I also have a stand alone 300 GB Seagate 7200.9 hard drive in the server, and the speeds transfering to that HD was the same before and after the tests. So, my system is still performing the same.
 
mjz_5 said:
But, other than making the 2 HDs linked using RAID 0, what other system changes are there? None. So if network speeds decrease, and the only change was making the 2 7200.8 HDs to RAID 0, then RAID 0 is the problem..
Click to expand...
Or, maybe an insufficient analysis is the problem. You can't blame RAID 0 as a technology when so many other issues are involved. RAID 0, alone, really is actually faster and your own measurements show it. Accessing the network has become slower, which suggests that there's some interaction between your adapter and your RAID implementation. Perhaps they're sharing an interrrupt, or your LAN isn't correctly configured to begin with.

I get far better than 10 megs/second, even using the redirector, when copying files from/to RAID0 machines. Before indicting RAID, I think you should do a little bit more investigation.
 
mikeblas said:
Or, maybe an insufficient analysis is the problem. You can't blame RAID 0 as a technology when so many other issues are involved. RAID 0, alone, really is actually faster and your own measurements show it. Accessing the network has become slower, which suggests that there's some interaction between your adapter and your RAID implementation. Perhaps they're sharing an interrrupt, or your LAN isn't correctly configured to begin with.

I get far better than 10 megs/second, even using the redirector, when copying files from/to RAID0 machines. Before indicting RAID, I think you should do a little bit more investigation.
Click to expand...

ok, ur right, i shouldn't jump into conclusions.. I'll transfer files between hard drives within the same system, or make a ram drive to test with.. But, i have no idea why things would get slower, hopefully i find out.
 
Technically, Raid 0 will be faster. A software raid setup through windows might slow things down a bit as opposed to a dedicated hardware setup. (motherboard or controller card) But you will notice a difference in large files. It will decrease load times of games that pull a lot of data from the drive, and if you work with huge files; ie, photoshop

The biggest disadvantage to Raid 0, as has already been mentioned, is you run the risk of losing everything if one of the drives goes bad. It is up to you whether you want to run the risk. Raid 5 is a good compromise if you can use it.
 
I will do RAID 0 and hopefully see improvements i'll backup all my important data to prevent loss and post benchmarks before RAID with just one HD in HD Tach and after RAID 0 in HD tach long test
 
soorma07 said:
I will do RAID 0 and hopefully see improvements i'll backup all my important data to prevent loss and post benchmarks before RAID with just one HD in HD Tach and after RAID 0 in HD tach long test
Click to expand...

HD tach showed a 150 percent increase in performace, but that didn't translate to real world tests
 
before RAID 0 my HD tach burst speed is 175.1 MB/s
the sequential read speed goes from 61 MB/s to 35 MB/s as the gigabytes increase

is this pretty good for jus a single drive? it beats my friends diamond max 10s
 
As the gigabytes of what increase? Transfer size?
 
HDTach displays (along the x axis) the position on the disk where it's reading from. I think that's what he's referencing.

 
^^yea thats what i meant

After RAID 0 on the integrated controller in the Abit AN8 mobo
i get HD tach burst speed of 257 MB/s
the sequential read speed goes from 120 MB/s to 60 MB/s as the gigabytes increase on that x-axis

WOW i have to say i'm liking this raid 0 i'm happy with how it runs on normal operation it's real fast and it got higher scores on hd tach than my friends RAID 5 with the same HDs WD 250KS

hope this helps anyone who is considering doing RAID 0
IMHO DO IT it gives you one big fast hard drive!
 
And how are real-world things doing? How many times a year do you play HDTach?

 
I take that you're using the SATAII WD 250gig HDD's with the 16MB cache, right? (Doesn't say in your sig..)

I was hella thinking about picking one up since they're only about 75 bucks. Then RAID 0 of course.

Have you noticed any gaming performance increases?
 
yes that is my hard drive n they are really cheap now n quiet n sooo much space they run lil hot but i mean not dangerous but now i don't kno the temps cuz of raid

i'll have to play some more games here to check out load times it will prolly be need for speed most wanted but even when i had just one of them the load times were real short if u mean fps nope no difference but thats understandable thats all in the graphics card

for normal use i guess i could say i notice a very slight gain in loading programs and the gigs are soo useful to have all in one that i am really glad i have raid 0 now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top