Please help me clarify... RAID question, SSD question

[sprout2287]

Ok, so it all started in 2006 when I was running a 250gb, 7200rpm, WD, SATA drive on my main system and all was good and well.

I got the wild hair up my ass, in '07, to upgrade to a 74gb raptor for my o/s, apps, and games. This was a night and day change for the better. My operating system and games all loaded noticeably faster. I judge the o/s by the number of passes of the green bar at the beginning of loading. AFAIK I had vista down to 2.5 passes or so with the 74.

Then, I read a lot of stuff about how the new WD black 6401aals are so badass and fast in a raid setup, so I upgraded to them and sold my raptor. This, for my purposes, was, in retrospect, a poor move on my part. My vista loading got significantly longer (8-9 passes of the green bar), and all apps took the same time or a tad longer to load than the raptor.

I need a bit of clarification as to what RAID actually does in a system.

1. Am I correct in assuming that the primary performance increase of a RAID setup is seen in transferring files between disks?

2. Am I also correct in assuming that going RAID will actually increase loading time of operating systems as compared to one of the same drives? This really seems wierd to me.

3. Lastly, I just ordered a single 60gb Vertex to replace my 6401aals pair as my o/s drive. Is it correct to assume I should be significantly shortening the time it takes for applications to open (Vista loading, MS Word, excel, powerpoint, bf2142, crysis, etc) These are the primary things I use daily. I don't transfer files around from computer to computer on my home network, nor do I move files from disk to disk on my machine.


Preemptive thanks guys...

I RAIDed my drives expecting to get faster loading of programs and I really just didn't get any of that. That's why I'm asking for clarification.

All this stuff is installed on my main rig: watercooled q9650@4.0-4.2, 4gb reapers, asus P5Q DLX (IHC10R+P45), watercooled gtx260

 

[Syntax Error]

RAID 0 really is a boondoggle unless you do it right. It theoretically should be able to increase sequential read throughput, though in reality the implementation varies depending on the controller that you are using (be it a hardware RAID controller or onboard southbridge, like JMB86x or ICH10R), RAID 0 should help in sequential throughput.

Shortstroking is where I seem to notice the most performance increases in RAID 0 arrays due to limiting the physical platter on partition to the fastest parts of the disk only rather than the entire disk.

To avoid headache (not to mention to avoid increased failure rates) you may just be better served by using a single drive rather than RAID'ing them up for marginal performance benefit and increased risk.

At least, that's where I stand, anyway.

 

[sprout2287]

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, I am shortstroked as far as I understand it. I'm running the primary, raid0, partition at only 80gb of space. The rest of the drives is (sounds funny gramatically) allocated as a raid 1 partition.

My synthetic benchmark numbers say it's working well. It just feels slower than the single raptor did.

Sorry, I don't have any hdtune results from the raptor...

 

[sprout2287]

^ access times are what loads programs quickly, am I correct?