RAID Questions

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:46 pm

Is the performance increase worth the extra money and the added headaches of software management on two drives to go the route of raid vs. a single drive? I have a MOBO that will run SATA150 and raid but I just bought a new Maxtor ATA 133 120GB a few months ago and I don't really want to start over with SATA since I would have to buy two new drives rather than one. Compare for me the real world difference between RAID on ATA133 and RIAD on SATA150. Also RAID on ATA133 vs. a single SATA drive.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:08 am

I don't have any physical stats to back this up... but i put two hitachi 80GB HDD in a RAID 0 array ($60 each), it is wayyyy faster than the single IDE Maxtor 200 GB I was running.
I'll try to find some good info for you on that. i was thinking about doing a write up on setting up a RAID array.
On a side note, i have heard that they can crash easily and you can lose data, but you should always back your stuff up anyway right?!

T-Shirt · Post by **T-Shirt** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:42 am

Yes raid 0 is faster.
however the failure rate (loss of all data) is more than twice that of a single same drive alone (because the single drive may be partially recoverable, with raid 0 if one drive fails NO RECOVERY IS POSSIBLE)
best bet would be 2 SATA's on raid 0 and a large drive for daily backup/images and deep storage

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:28 am

This is a hard topic to debate about. Yes Raid 0 is faster than a single drive in some applications. How ever most programs do not take advantage of that. Benchmarks will show that Raid 0 out performs all single drives in terms of bandwidth and access times. What they will not show is how the caching algorithms work. Computer systems are designed not to read things off the hard drive. Why? Simply because hard drives are too slow. That’s what the cache is for, using algorithms to predict what data you will need next the drive will prefect your data and store it in the cache making it accessible almost instantly. This means that the speed of the drive has less impact on “real” usage than the cache size and prefect algorithms. Now if you were running an application that is hard to predict, such as database, web server, or file server, then that speed would be more important. This is because the drive would not be able to predict the usage of several different users and the speed and bandwidth of the drives would have a much larger impact. So if you are like most people and use your computer for gaming, web, and video playback, cache size (8mb) makes more of a difference. Spindle speed also has an impact but less of one then the cache, a 7200rpm drive will “feel” more responsive than a 5400rpm drive. If you want the all around fastest drive for a single user then the Raptor is your drive, a single drive can reach 74mb transfer speeds; they have 8mb of cache, 10,000rpm spindle, and have very good algorithms. The drive you have now is about as fast as you’re going to get, yes Raid 0 would be faster but not much so and only with some applications. I say save your money and keep the drive you have.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:49 am

I should also note that SATA will net slightly better scores but will have little real world impact. Lastly i personaly like RAID, and im going to use it at some point but i have not yet justified the cost of the drives. I think i would be more likly to get a 74gb Raptor before i go RAID.

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:17 am

thanks all.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:49 pm

Everyone always talks about the Raptors. After using these $60 hitachis in a RAID array I wasn't really impressed. I don't notice much of a difference, except the $200 I had to spend on something else.. I am going to get a third and run them off a PCI card. The "Speed "Issue of Maximum PCdid a comparative on 1, 2, 3, and 4 Drive setups . The avg read times were : 1 Drive (47 MB/sec), 2 Drive (95 MB/sec), 3 Drive (113 MB/sec), and 4 Drive (107MB/sec)
The three drive array was the fastest as the max transfer rate on PCI is 133 MB/sec. Once the 4th drive was attached the performance declined because it was more than the Bus could handle.
After seeing how much faster things load with a RAID array,(apps, etc ) I think there is a notieable difference between one drive and multiple drives. Hope this helps

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:45 pm

I got alot to saok up now. Thanks for the help.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:05 pm

But don't worry...two days after you finally make up your mind, something better will come out. i think that is some unwritten rule in the computer worls or something

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:34 pm

I hear you there. I think I'll sit tight for now and then get a SATA in a few months and then another for RAID a few months after that. What kind of problems would I have if I had one say 60GB SATA and one 120GB ATA133 and use the ATA133 for storage and Video editing files and the SATA for games etc.?

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:57 pm

you shouldn't habve any problem at all. when you get everything you need for RAID, just back up all your stuff and format your HDs as one, then reinstall Windows on your RAID array.
If i could afford it i'd buy a Western Digital one touch back up system ($279 gets you a 250 GB HDD and a 8-1 card redaer). Having a good backup system is getting to be a necessity.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:09 am

Ill be honest and say that i dont trust western digital over 120gb. we have gotten a few of the 250gb drives in the office and i think we have had problmes with every one. At least one died, and two others got corupted. I like western digital but i dont yet trust their high density drives. I personaly would buy seagate drives, they now come with 5 year warrentes, and while they are not quite as fast as the WD or Maxtor they are not slow either. If you realy need the preformance then Hitachi is the way to go with out buying raptors.

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:10 pm

All sizes of Hitachi? How loud are they?

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:16 pm

40-42dB, and the 250gb is a bit faster than the 400gb.

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:22 pm

Thanks