What is fastest... of these choices:

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

orkan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Messages
1,488
4x SCSI Cheetah 10K.7 - ST373207LW - In a RAID-0

4x 74GB Raptors - In a RAID-0

2x 300GB VelociRaptors - In a RAID-0

Whats the order here, from fastest to slowest?

Primary application will be in a single user environment. Photoshop, Premiere, and Gaming being the primary uses.
 
I'm not exactly sure which is technically faster but if I were you i'd take the Velociraptor option.
 
I would say the Velociraptors since they have higher density platters. And for a single user environment, I wouldn't worry so much about RAID0. Use that $300 to upgrade your processor (if needed), RAM, or video card for more noticeable performance gain.
 
Are you for real?

Are you really trying to tell me that RAID-0 isn't faster than a single disk?

Look, I've been running raid-0 as my boot/application and work arrays for 8+ years. I did not ask for your opinion about whether you think I should run raid. I also didnt ask your opinion about where I should spend my money. The rest of my system is already as fast as I want it.

The question was not what you think I should do, nor was it whether you thought RAID-0 was worthwhile. If you don't know the answer to the original question... then FINE, don't post. But I'm not interested in what you think beyond that.

Its a very definite question... WHICH of the hdd combinations listed is FASTEST?
 
I doubt you'll find a definite answer, as in benchmarks, but the VR's make the most sense in terms of reliablitly because there are fewer drives. Also, the controller may have an impact on performance, do you know what you'll be using?

You might be able to infer the best choice by the results in this thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1284410&

Oh, and don't be a douche to people trying to help you out.
 
[LYL]Homer;1032602421 said:
Oh, and don't be a douche to people trying to help you out.
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

Your post was useful. I am aware of the reliability issues with multiple drives in raid0, but I am shooting for max performance here, so that is not a concern.

It's hard to not be a douche when people respond completely off topic and try to act intelligent, all the while not answering my question at all. I am also crippled mentally by the fact that most of these people just started building computers within the last couple years and the only experience they have is what they have read on forums and websites.

Over the years I have become increasingly impatient with these types of people that want to try to act like they know something... but really don't know squat. I am from the old guard, where when you didnt know, you SAID you didn't know, and didn't waste people's time. So forgive my hostility toward those that don't know that I've been building computers, servers, and workstations for over 15 years. Forgive me for wishing people didn't waste my time spewing phrases from "pc world" articles, instead of answering my definate question.

For what its worth, I do much worse in person, when someone wastes my time trying to "act" smart. ... but hey, I'm sure its my fault for wanting people that don't know, to stay off my threads. :)
 
[LYL]Homer;1032602421 said:
Oh, and don't be a douche to people trying to help you out.
Click to expand...

+1

To answer the topic... my guess is that there will be a very negligible difference in performance, especially between the 4-drive solutions but as was already mentioned, your controller comes in to play here. What are you planning on using?

Assuming you're using a decent dedicated controller my guess would be that the Raptors would be the purely fastest drives out there so long as you aren't concerned about how much space you'll have on the array, etc. Then the Cheeta's and finally the Velociraptors.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, that I would be wary about the Cheetah's since SCSI drives are becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to come by, regardless of the minor performance difference you may gain.
 
I'll be using an areca controller. Haven't decided on the model yet.
 
orkan said:
Thanks. :)

Your post was useful. I am aware of the reliability issues with multiple drives in raid0, but I am shooting for max performance here, so that is not a concern.

It's hard to not be a douche when people respond completely off topic and try to act intelligent, all the while not answering my question at all. I am also crippled mentally by the fact that most of these people just started building computers within the last couple years and the only experience they have is what they have read on forums and websites.

Over the years I have become increasingly impatient with these types of people that want to try to act like they know something... but really don't know squat. I am from the old guard, where when you didnt know, you SAID you didn't know, and didn't waste people's time. So forgive my hostility toward those that don't know that I've been building computers, servers, and workstations for over 15 years. Forgive me for wishing people didn't waste my time spewing phrases from "pc world" articles, instead of answering my definate question.

For what its worth, I do much worse in person, when someone wastes my time trying to "act" smart. ... but hey, I'm sure its my fault for wanting people that don't know, to stay off my threads. :)
Click to expand...

You have no idea who I am or what my experience is, nor I yours. I've too been in the computer circle-jerk either for myself or others for fifteen years. I answered your question and went on to offer some helpful advice. If you don't want it fine, but don't act like a complete dick. Just ignore it. Run RAID0 if you want, I don't give a rat's ass about what you do beyond here.

I ran a RAID-0 array for four monhts up until last week when one of my drives crapped out. During that time I saw no advantage to having other than consolidateing my two 500GB drives.

The fact of the matter is that most hard drives will read ahead and cache what it thinks will be the next read bit of data. In a single user environment doing the things you listed, RAID-0 doesn't no real improvement because the data will nearly always already for transfer.

So if you set the array up for large file transfers (large block size), your OS will see no benefits from the array since most of it's files will fit well withing the block and not be split across the drives.

If you set up for small files (small block sizes), then while your OS get a mild boost (again, caching will negate a lot of RAID-0's benefit). However, you will actaully loose performance on large files (photos, game textures, etc) since you have cut the large files into many more pieces. That introduces a delay because the controler has to check and reassemble more pieces to burst over to the CPU/RAM. Again this cancels the benefits of RAID-0

EDIT: To be quite honest, I did not notice you'd only said 2 VR drive rather than 4 as with the others. But side by side the VR's are the fastest drives on the market with 4 times the bit density of the aging Raptors, so 2 VRs very well could surpass 4 Raptors in raw data throughput.

Oh and why SCSI rather than SAS?
 
Funny how my real world experience with my customers ranging from some guy in his basement to GLOBAL manufacturing companies whom I'm under NDA with, say they experience a HUGE speed increase in 3D CAD, video editing, and proprietary design using RAID-0 vs single drives.

Be afraid of raid0 if you want. The rest of us know it is the only option when maximum speed is the objective.
 
orkan said:
Funny how my real world experience with my customers ranging from some guy in his basement to GLOBAL manufacturing companies whom I'm under NDA with, say they experience a HUGE speed increase in 3D CAD, video editing, and proprietary design using RAID-0 vs single drives.

Be afraid of raid0 if you want. The rest of us know it is the only option when maximum speed is the objective.
Click to expand...

Who said I was afraid of it? I would still be running it if one of my drives hadn't crapped out. I saw no real benefit from it, but there was no point in taking down the array. It will say that was quite convienient to have all my hard drive space as one block that I could partition however I wanted.

However (and since you build computers systems for people then you should realize this), of course a new computer is going to get accolades of increased performance. Most people don't realize how little the hard drive is actually used, and when it is, it's hardly waited on since the processor goes on to the next task until the drive is ready again.

I will agree though, in a multiuser environment where multple people are accessing completely random data, RAID-0 offers a huge boost.
 
Yeah, seriously, the guy sounds like a rep for Summers Eve*
Ryan was extremely civil. Provided options to your question in perfect form.

Hey, check this out: I know very little about SCSI, actually setting up a RAID, or "speed" specifics per drive. However: List your budget. Depending on budget, certain items will fit. Depending on those items, we should be able to do some searching and hopefully find comparable results per item per raid. The term for that kind of research is called "Googling". So, let us know asap so we can do the research for you; you fucking douche. ;)



*Summers Eve is a feminine hygiene company
 
Go ahead douche bags... pat each other on the back all you like, you obviously aren't knowing what it is I asked. It was a very simple question and if I wanted to compare single disk benchmarks as oppose to get information from people that had actual experience with those disks configured as I specified... I'd have fuckn googled it myself.

Goddamn this forum sure is packed with people that "think" they know these days. I been frequenting these boards for almost 8 years, and it seems it only gets worse with time. Well you guys have fun with each other. I'll just buy the drives and get the answer on my own.
 
orkan said:
Go ahead douche bags... pat each other on the back all you like, you obviously aren't knowing what it is I asked. It was a very simple question and if I wanted to compare single disk benchmarks as oppose to get information from people that had actual experience with those disks configured as I specified... I'd have fuckn googled it myself.

Goddamn this forum sure is packed with people that "think" they know these days. I been frequenting these boards for almost 8 years, and it seems it only gets worse with time. Well you guys have fun with each other. I'll just buy the drives and get the answer on my own.
Click to expand...

I see only one douche bag in this thread. Your question was answered. Being that the VR are extremely new, you're not going to find many people with actual first hand experience with a single drive, much less multiple ones. If you can't accept that you're going to get advice from people who use common sense and basic mathematics, then don't post on a public forum. Do your own fucking test since you're such a 1337 computer god and knows everything there is know about computers (yet can't answer this one question).

Even if you do get someone that has experience with exactly the setups you've described, there's no guarantee that sticker shock isn't biasing their experience a bit. I mean who wouldn't want a $600 two drive setup to outperform an $800 four drive setup? I've been in this busines long enough to know that personal experience means jack shit. It's combined experience and hard numbers from reliable sources that will answer your question.
 
Dude, relax... its just the internet.

Lets do a recap: You are asking as to which is faster between 3 Raid 0 setups. 1 consisting of SCSI (10k), one consisting of 4 older Raptor drives, and one consisting of 2 brand new Velociraptors. The only way someone can answer which is faster, is if they have owned, used, and tested each of those combos. One person may have had a 4 74 gig setup, great they can give you benchmarks for their SPECIFIC system. Someone else may be running SCSI, and again they will give you benchmarks for their SPECIFIC system. So don't get pissed when peoples here can't give you a definitive answer.

Seriously, even if you get benchmarks from peoples on all 3 systems... there will still be differences per build. CPU/Mobo/Ram/Vid. If you are going to get picky about the details, saying you want to know which is fastest; then up your budget and BUY the fastest. Get 4 Velociraptors Raid 5 for a swap (I think... I may have to research a.k.a. google to make sure I am talking about the right Raid setup) or 4 Veloci's Raid 0, and be done with it.
 
orkan said:
... that must explain why so many people that know everything... don't know anything.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure if you read my recap. Check it again. It completely answers your question.

Which is fastest: No one here will be able to answer that. No one here owns each of your examples. I was able to find benchmarks for 2 Veloci's using google. First result when using "2 Velociraptor Raid 0" or a search very similar to that. I most likely typed two instead of 2, can't remember.

I was only able to find 2 74 Raptors in Raid 0, haven't spent too much time looking for 4.

And I didn't even search for SCSI... and do you know why? Because, I know you can type. And that means you can type out a search within Google... to hopefully find something close to what you want to hear (read).
 
orkan said:
Funny how my real world experience with my customers ranging from some guy in his basement to GLOBAL manufacturing companies whom I'm under NDA with, say they experience a HUGE speed increase in 3D CAD, video editing, and proprietary design using RAID-0 vs single drives.
Click to expand...
I can merely tell my users that I've done something to speed up their computers and then ask them if they've noticed a week later and more than half of them will say: "Yeah, thanks! It's been great! Really fast!"

That's called a placebo effect. Unless you can actually provide benchmarks or numbers for these "huge" gains in a single-user environment, I wouldn't put much stock in what your users are saying. I'd also suggest that your users reporting such mind-blowing performance increases are actually noticing other upgrades to hard drives or other hardware in the system that coincided with the implementation of RAID 0 on their workstation. Or do you often just institute RAID 0 without changing/upgrading their hard drives?

It's been documented on storagereview.com and elsewhere that RAID 0 has very little if any performance benefit in single-user (non-server) environments. So someone mentioned that you might want to forgo RAID 0 depending on the environment and your needs.

And yes, you're acting like a douche. You asked a question on a public forum. Apparently, you neglected to mention the fact that you'd attack anyone who stated something that contradicts your preconceived notions or isn't "under NDA with GLOBAL manufacturing corporations." :rolleyes:

Be afraid of raid0 if you want. The rest of us know it is the only option when maximum speed is the objective.
Click to expand...
Again, RAID 0 can be a complete waste of money depending on environment and needs. There is documentation to suggest that it would be wasted in your stated environment. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're not. . . but stop being a douche to those who point this out.

But honestly, I think you're too far into defensive mode after behaving like a douche to actually stop behaving like a douche. Rather than go back and realize you were being a douche to friendly people trying to help, you'll just continue to be a douche and attack everyone until the thread flames out.
 
Ok, I dropped the douche-bomb so I'll make an attempt to clean it up. Let's all just agree to either get along or agree to disagreee.

Orkan, the most useful thing that might come from this is that you post your benchmarks and specs of whatever you decide to put in your system. I think I and a lot of others would be interested.

For the rest, I think your point has been made. Thanks. Now move along.
 
Hurin said:
But honestly, I think you're too far into defensive mode after behaving like a douche to actually stop behaving like a douche. Rather than go back and realize you were being a douche to friendly people trying to help, you'll just continue to be a douche and attack everyone until the thread flames out.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right. ... and you know what? I'm OK with that.

I'll post results of what I decide to do. Probably going to go with 4 velociraptors and be content knowing its the fastest I could get. But then again I might just go with 8 150 raptors.

The options are limitless.
 
Of those choices I would go with the two VR's as SCSI has no interest for me and I'd take 2 newer drives over 4 older ones any day. It may not be the absolute fastest as I haven't tested those setups, but it'd be the way I go.

As for the fiery comments:
For Photoshop and Premire, you will probably benifit from a RAID 0 scratch drive. Though I wouldn't want it to be the same drive that the OS is installed on as windows swaps to the drive all the time and those added seeks by the OS will slow down your scratch drive. (even with plenty of memory, windows does this with loaded but not active allocated memory etc see: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php )

For gaming, most games do not benefit all that much from RAID 0 as in game hopefully you will not be swapping to disks, and when loading a level most of your delay is actually your CPU decompressing the levels, not your drive reading from disk. However I'd probably still install my games to the RAID 0 array as again it'd be separate from the OS drive that windows will be constantly swapping from.
 
This thread has gotten a little out of hand.

Please keep in mind rule number one:

(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top