![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sata Raid question
- Thread starter noobtech
- Start date
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
The real question is why are you wanting to RAID.
RAID-0 is less dependable and unless you are doing some serious file transfers, the performance gain in things such as games are negligible at best
RAID-0 is less dependable and unless you are doing some serious file transfers, the performance gain in things such as games are negligible at best
hulksterjoe
older and wiser now
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2001
- Messages
- 2,900
I'd still buy that drive or another and .. put os/apps on one and data on another.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,848
Flat out wrong imho.UltimaParadox said:
RAID-0 (especially with a serial interface) makes for an easily noticable performance gain. Recently going from a single serial drive to RAID-0 I noticed the difference right away. I've also in the past had a 2x IDE RAID-0 setup and later a 4x IDE RAID-0 setup, and I've always really noticed the difference.
It depends on what you do, but personally, I really notice it.
As for reliability. It makes me laugh all these people and websites that drone on about the risks of RAID-0. From my experience, even with a 4x ide raid-0 setup with a pci bus overclocked to 42mhz, the reliability just isn't a factor. I've never had a drive fail on me ever, let alone in RAID. I always use Maxtor drives incidently.
Don't buy crap drives, don't let them get hot, don't use a wanky PSU, and don't treat your PC like shit (i.e. skipping check disk when asked etc) and you'll be fine.
I agree with Spine :
So what if a drive fails?
I'm totally backed up on 7 other drives spread accross 2 computers. I up the really important stuff to a server somewhere so I won't lose everything if the house was to burn down.
I say go for the RAID ! It's cool. Especially now that you can pick up another Raptor for $164.00!!! (I paid $236 a piece for mine back in August of this year)
But for a different reason. I have had drives fail but my theory is that anyone that has the computer knowledge to want and set up a RAID machine is also smart enough to back up his data.
So what if a drive fails?
I'm totally backed up on 7 other drives spread accross 2 computers. I up the really important stuff to a server somewhere so I won't lose everything if the house was to burn down.
I say go for the RAID ! It's cool. Especially now that you can pick up another Raptor for $164.00!!! (I paid $236 a piece for mine back in August of this year)
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
spine said:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101
Enjoy the read, unless you have some info backing your claims feel free, but placebo effect can be a powerful thing.
RAID was good back in the days of slower drives, or in large database setups mostly running SCSI interface drives. But as far as normal use and gaming, RAID offers hardly any benefit compared to the cost.
And yes its always going to be more suspectible for loss, since it is two drives, and if one fails your whole system is hosed. They doesn't mean that you shouldn't backup, it justs plain facts. When there are two drives it is more likely that one will fail.
Here is the abridged version of the article, for lazy people
AnandTech said:
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,848
I've carried out extensive tests of my own to see the difference so I know full well what impact it makes. Most of my tests have been between different stripe sizes and even in that field there's noticable variances.UltimaParadox said:
Tests I did were things like; copy a file from one drive to another and time it, build a large (over a gig) wav file from goldwave and save it somewhere (essentially a real world raw write test).
I kept all the data on paper so don't have it easily on hand, however, here's a picture taken from my mobile:
Things I found out were that a stripe of 256kb was best for a 4x IDE RAID-0 array, whilst a stripe of 64kb was best for a 2x Serial RAID-0 array.
I did these tests because I was pissed off with websites just quoting wishy washy theory about stripe sizes without having real world data to back it up.
UltimaParadox
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,243
spine said:
Well these websites still show that in large database environments that RAID has a place, but for this guy and playing games, there is no benefit to justify the cost of the drive.
Large RAW file tests, are still shown, and show RAID's benefit, but how often is noobtech going to writing such large files. We are not talking about a business that hits its products database 20 times a minute
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,848
Sure, many people wouldn't notice it. Kinda like most people don't notice faster cpu speeds and graphics etc.
Each to their own.
Personally I think £40-£50 on a new hard drive to get RAID-0 is well worth it since the Hard drive is the biggest bottle neck found in PC's today.
If you're gunna go buying expensive hard drives then I guess you'd have to think twice.
Each to their own.
Personally I think £40-£50 on a new hard drive to get RAID-0 is well worth it since the Hard drive is the biggest bottle neck found in PC's today.
If you're gunna go buying expensive hard drives then I guess you'd have to think twice.
Thing is... it's "fast enough". I can't even complain with my regular 80 GB IDE HDD. A Raptor on single would be much faster and it's more than enough - that's just in my view.
And if you say that your drives have never failed you, then all I have to say is you need a reality check. Get some more experience and come back.
-J.
And if you say that your drives have never failed you, then all I have to say is you need a reality check. Get some more experience and come back.
-J.