• 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.

Real World RAID Test

S

SM0R3S

n00b
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
4
Has anyone seen or run real world RAID test for systems that either run a RAID 0,1,5, or 10 for gaming? Example having a primary drive Solid or Mechanical used for OS and program files and the secondary setup to store game installs and saved files that is running RAID.
 
Best option for gaming is an SSD. Second best would be an SSHD or WD 10k Raptor. The lowest possible latency.

RAID increases sequential and/or random disk throughput (depending on the configuration). Games need neither massive sequential reads and/or random disk throughput. Certain types of database applications and file servers do however.
 
RAID increases the access times a bit (SSD goes from maybe .1 ms or something to .2), so it would technically be worse for games.
 
bigdogchris said:
Best option for gaming is an SSD. Second best would be an SSHD or WD 10k Raptor. The lowest possible latency.

RAID increases sequential and/or random disk throughput (depending on the configuration). Games need neither massive sequential reads and/or random disk throughput. Certain types of database applications and file servers do however.
Click to expand...


I would beg to differ. Sequential read/writes aren't the only things you gain from RAID. Most reviews I've seen regarding SSHD's show they're relatively good in the short run and mediocre in the long. It's basically using the NAND chips as a caching mechanism and once that fills up and starts dumping off data you're back to HDD speeds until you start something up and load it back into the SSD portion. Reason why SSHD's have been mostly a flop because the low NAND amount and price makes it more reasonable to just adopt an SSD with a single big HDD.

I wouldn't recommend SSHD's at all over even 2 RAID 0 HDD's. Having run a 3 x 640GB RAID 0 array prior to moving to an SSD I can honestly say I noticed very little speed improvements in general, especially gaming, between the two. If you jumped from a single hard drive to SSD or a triple RAID 0 I think you'd find a huge gain but little noticeable separation between the two.

Not sure what xIronCrossx is referring to in access times increasing on RAIDed SSD's, but RAID + SSD's has been a constant struggle since the beginning which is now only started to be corrected.
 
People have been using RAID for gaming since 2000 and before. Only recently with the cheapness of SSDs has it essentially made the home RAID for performance unnecessary
 
SM0R3S said:
Has anyone seen or run real world RAID test for systems that either run a RAID 0,1,5, or 10 for gaming? Example having a primary drive Solid or Mechanical used for OS and program files and the secondary setup to store game installs and saved files that is running RAID.
Click to expand...

I guess I can safely answer this from my own testing and experience. I own/run my own successful IT business and do many system builds as well as host LAN parties regularly. My own rig has been developed over many of these years working out what worked best and finally settled on my combo.

2x 530 series Intel 240GB SSD's in RAID-0 using the on-board Intel RAID Approx. 1GB/sec R/W
4x WD Black 2TB drives in RAID-10 using on-board RAID Approx. 260-300MB/sec R/W
1x BluRay ROM on PCI-E 2-port SATA card
1x DVD-RW on PCI-E 2-port SATA card

I use a Z97 based chipset on a gigabyte board with 2x DIMM's of 8GB DDR-III 1866 (only running at 1600) pushed by a i7-4790 (stock clocks) for a output of just over 100GFlops. There is also a HD R9 290 sucking juice from a 1KW supply all squeezed in a Silverstone HTPC case.

This results in a stupidly stable system that I use for both gaming and as my business workstation. It is even stable enough for me to use when I am doing the sound work and production in a theatre.

I used to run things from 2-6 disk RAID-0 & RAID-5 arrays, Mirrored arrays of WD 1TB VelociRaptors, single SSD's, single HDD's, Hardware RAID cards on top of all the previous methods, even through in Caching and RAM drives so I guess I have tested it all.

So what does this mean to the question at hand, what works best - REAL WORLD?

  1. My boot times are fast, but only a pooftenth faster than a mirrored WD VR's.
  2. Operation of daily use opening and closing apps, SSD's in RAID-0 for me work best but only just faster than a single SSD. I went the RAID-0 for space over the speed.
  3. Games, here comes the smack in other faces: anyone who claims that SSD's are faster is bullshitting. These statements are too broad and rarely have any backing. Each test needs to be done for each game, there is too much variance between each game regarding its load times and map changes. Example, BF3 & 4, SSD's were/are fast but the WD VR's were faster by a little (still enough to be in the top 5% in first) but when you look at older games like CoD, HDD's one hands down. Game load times are not always about drive speeds and benchmarks, there are other things like server connections, expanding compressed files and starting/stopping services.
  4. Having a bleeding edge system is for nothing more than wank-factor. Now that will get a nibble I am sure, fact is, you spend a lot more coins for less than a couple of percent gain if any. I know of plenty systems around that cost 3x as much as mine yet get smashed in both synthetics and real-world.
  5. While we are at it, ALWAYS use the on-board Intel RAID if you can when using HDD's and especially SSD's. It is still the only RAID controller that passes TRIM and won't cost the earth. Don't get into all these F-whit benchmarking websites that stick stupid amounts of SSD's in RAID-0 on a hardware card. They get paid to be wankers, end of story. Real-world, the arrays and systems have no gains.
  6. Never use Green drives! i don't even need to go there, those who do are idiots.
  7. Now the final tit-bit: If you don't have coins for multiple SSD's or actually need a decent amount of space, the best combo's are to use a large HDD (2TB max as I have no time for people who insist on putting their OS on bigger partitions) combined with a 60GB SSD's using Intel's caching on their on-board controllers. I now regularly build gaming systems with a pair of WD 2TB blacks and a single 60GB SSD in cache mode. End result: fast machine with ample space to install everything without mess of having to have physical/virtual partitions everywhere. Games load fast and so do apps.

P.S: Seagate SSHD's are nice on paper but when put against WD blacks or VR's, they are limp-dicks.
 
People have been using RAID for gaming since 2000 and before.
Click to expand...

:) I remember in the mid to late 1990s having 6 10k ultrawide scsi3 drives in raid0 + a pair of 15K chetas for the OS on an Adaptec 45 port 3 UltraWide SCSI3 channel controller. I am still using the 18 bay antec case although no spinners.
 
Last edited:
drescherjm said:
:) I remember in the mid to late 1990s having 6 10k ultrawide scsi drives in raid0 + a pair of 15K chetas for the OS on a 45 port adaptec 3 channel controller. I am still using the 18 bay antec case although no spinners.
Click to expand...

LOL, I used to have Quantum Bigfoots and fireballs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top