Recent RAID0 vs. Not in Single Use Workstations?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

About to build a new workstation.
AMD FX53 with 1GB RAM on (probably) MSI Neo2 Plat board.

Use is streaming video, video editing and some minimal graphics.
Not photoshop.

Reading that RAID0 is NOT providing the "great" real life performance
improvement once thought and need to investigate.

Drives will be Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB/16MB cache (3 of 'em) and
*was* planning on a single for system C: and then the other two in
a RAID1 for archiving, etc... basic storage on D:

Realize that an INTEL chipset ICH6 would provide tagged queuing, but
that means a PIV and the FX53 is coming in cheaper for the top end
and faster so really leaning towards the nVidia chipset board. Seeing
very little 'single use' difference for tagged queuing anyway.

Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous benefits of
RAID0 for single workstation use? Refuting comments greatly appreciated.
Thanks.


--
Rich "Doc" Colley

mailto: pc-dc-doc@nospam.comcast.net
12 answers Last reply
More about recent raid0 single workstations
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Doc <pc-dc-doc@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
    > About to build a new workstation.
    > AMD FX53 with 1GB RAM on (probably) MSI Neo2 Plat board.

    > Use is streaming video, video editing and some minimal graphics.
    > Not photoshop.

    > Reading that RAID0 is NOT providing the "great" real life performance
    > improvement once thought and need to investigate.

    > Drives will be Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB/16MB cache (3 of 'em) and
    > *was* planning on a single for system C: and then the other two in
    > a RAID1 for archiving, etc... basic storage on D:

    > Realize that an INTEL chipset ICH6 would provide tagged queuing, but
    > that means a PIV and the FX53 is coming in cheaper for the top end
    > and faster so really leaning towards the nVidia chipset board. Seeing
    > very little 'single use' difference for tagged queuing anyway.

    > Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous benefits of
    > RAID0 for single workstation use? Refuting comments greatly appreciated.

    I have seen a speed-up of factor 2 with Linux software RAID0 on
    reading, but not on writing, which was slower. This was just a
    test-set up and some time ago. I see about 2 times disk speed
    when reading from software RAID5 with >= 3 disks, but again, writing
    is slower, maybe half the native disk speed, regardless of number of
    drives.

    I recently tried to use an Adaptec 2810AS SATA RAID contoller (pice
    of trash) under Linux and it was slower than RAID5 in software.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Doc wrote:
    > About to build a new workstation.
    > AMD FX53 with 1GB RAM on (probably) MSI Neo2 Plat board.
    >
    > Use is streaming video, video editing and some minimal graphics.
    > Not photoshop.
    >
    > Reading that RAID0 is NOT providing the "great" real life performance
    > improvement once thought and need to investigate.
    >
    > Drives will be Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB/16MB cache (3 of 'em) and
    > *was* planning on a single for system C: and then the other two in
    > a RAID1 for archiving, etc... basic storage on D:
    >
    > Realize that an INTEL chipset ICH6 would provide tagged queuing, but
    > that means a PIV and the FX53 is coming in cheaper for the top end
    > and faster so really leaning towards the nVidia chipset board. Seeing
    > very little 'single use' difference for tagged queuing anyway.
    >
    > Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous benefits of
    > RAID0 for single workstation use? Refuting comments greatly appreciated.
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    Where did you hear RAID-0 is not providing 'great' performance? I
    have 2x raid-0 raptor 36GB drives and I'm luvin' it. My computer is
    only an XP 1.8Ghz, but with the drives, it seems faster than a 3Ghz
    P4. I'll never go back to a single drive. Many of the tasks that are
    disk-intensive run as much as twice as fast. On my single-user
    workstation, some examples are:

    searching eudora email box (100Megs of mail)
    starting up WinXP
    shutting down WinXP
    Loading the dozen or so programs i run daily.
    large database insert/update queries
    picture browsing (1.8MB/file)
    recording video from ati tv player
    playing back video
    searching the file system for files
    enqueing My Music into winamp
    installing any new programs
    uninstalling programs
    loading large games, like half-life

    Nebulous benefits? Probably true for an office PC that runs a single
    application all day and stays on 24/7, but not in my situation. I
    wouldn't see any benefit from tagged queueing though.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Doc wrote:
    >
    > Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous benefits of
    > RAID0 for single workstation use? Refuting comments greatly appreciated.
    > Thanks.

    I certainly am.

    When I used to use Photoshop 7 editing large (100MB plus) files was
    inherently quicker on a RAID 0 array. I was, however, using SCSI
    (Adaptec 2100S) which was a lot quicker than the equivalent ATA RAID 0.

    My experience is that RAID 0 will make an enormous difference to any
    application where disk activity is frenzied.


    Odie
    --

    RetroData
    Data Recovery Experts
    www.retrodata.co.uk
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Doc" <pc-dc-doc@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:4135d942$0$2491$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
    > About to build a new workstation.
    > AMD FX53 with 1GB RAM on (probably) MSI Neo2 Plat board.
    >
    > Use is streaming video, video editing

    There is a MAJOR advantage to RAID 0 in video editing.

    > and some minimal graphics.
    > Not photoshop.
    >
    > Reading that RAID0 is NOT providing the "great" real life performance
    > improvement once thought and need to investigate.

    Those claims are misleading. They refer to the average user doing Office
    etc with low intensity disk I/O.

    > Drives will be Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB/16MB cache (3 of 'em) and
    > *was* planning on a single for system C: and then the other two in
    > a RAID1 for archiving, etc... basic storage on D:
    >
    > Realize that an INTEL chipset ICH6 would provide tagged queuing,

    Assume NOT implemented in drivers yet.

    > but
    > that means a PIV and the FX53 is coming in cheaper for the top end
    > and faster so really leaning towards the nVidia chipset board. Seeing
    > very little 'single use' difference for tagged queuing anyway.

    Tagged command queuing is not important for video editing nor most
    workstation usage.

    > Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous benefits of
    > RAID0 for single workstation use?

    RAID 0 has distinct advanatges for many power users.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41368887.4F1A53AE@hotmail.com...
    > Doc wrote:
    > >
    > > Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous benefits of
    > > RAID0 for single workstation use? Refuting comments greatly appreciated.
    > > Thanks.
    >
    > I certainly am.

    For video editing RAID 0 rules.

    > When I used to use Photoshop 7 editing large (100MB plus) files was
    > inherently quicker on a RAID 0 array. I was, however, using SCSI
    > (Adaptec 2100S) which was a lot quicker than the equivalent ATA RAID 0.

    That's completely false.

    > My experience is that RAID 0 will make an enormous difference to any
    > application where disk activity is frenzied.

    Right.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh typed this:

    > "Doc" <pc-dc-doc@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:4135d942$0$2491$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
    >
    >> About to build a new workstation. AMD FX53 with 1GB RAM on
    >> (probably) MSI Neo2 Plat board. Use is streaming video, video
    >> editing
    >
    > There is a MAJOR advantage to RAID 0 in video editing.
    >
    >> and some minimal graphics.Not photoshop. Reading that RAID0 is NOT
    >> providing the "great" real life performance improvement once
    >> thought and need to investigate.
    >
    > Those claims are misleading. They refer to the average user doing
    > Office etc with low intensity disk I/O.
    >

    >> Drives will be Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB/16MB cache (3 of 'em) and
    >> *was* planning on a single for system C: and then the other two in
    >> a RAID1 for archiving, etc... basic storage on D: Realize that an
    >> INTEL chipset ICH6 would provide tagged queuing,
    >
    > Assume NOT implemented in drivers yet.
    >
    >> but that means a PIV and the FX53 is coming in cheaper for the top
    >> end and faster so really leaning towards the nVidia chipset board.
    >> Seeing very little 'single use' difference for tagged queuing
    >> anyway.
    >
    > Tagged command queuing is not important for video editing nor most
    > workstation usage.
    >
    >> Is the community in "agreement" (oh yeah...) on the nebulous
    >> benefits of RAID0 for single workstation use?
    >
    > RAID 0 has distinct advanatges for many power users.

    Hmm, okay. Well, this is interesting. I have a 3 drive Maxtor Highpoint
    rocket raid 404 in my current system but it is not the C drive. So the
    quicker loading and and shutting down of XP would not be noted. Indeed I
    am really only using the drives for data and storage retrieval.

    I *DO* note that I had a heck of a time 'installing' some applications
    (the latest Word Pro from lotus for example) onto a RAID array. Not
    sure, and wasn't then, WHY. Finally copied the files to the C drive and
    did a direct install from there... weird behavior also effected Delorme
    mapping app installation.

    So given that the CONSENSUS here is to use RAID0 for video and other
    such application use, I'll defin. reconsider the design. It was the
    review at STORAGEREVIEW.com and a few other locations that piqued my
    questions. Thanks.
    --
    Rich "Doc" Colley

    mailto: pc-dc-doc@nospam.comcast.net
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >
    > For video editing RAID 0 rules.
    >
    > > When I used to use Photoshop 7 editing large (100MB plus) files was
    > > inherently quicker on a RAID 0 array. I was, however, using SCSI
    > > (Adaptec 2100S) which was a lot quicker than the equivalent ATA RAID 0.
    >
    > That's completely false.

    It's not, actually. At the time I had just purchased a new Adaptec
    2400A IDE RAID card and was getting poor performance from RAID 0.

    I finally managed to get Adaptec to do a straight swap for their 2100S,
    a SCSI RAID card.

    The difference was noticeable.

    Granted, using 10K rpm high speed IDE drives will sway the argument more
    in IDE's favour, but taking reliability issues into account, SCSI wins
    hands down for me.

    But I suppose you would require a lot of experience of both setups
    before passing valid comment. I do have that experience.


    Odie
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4136D6AB.E22F6BA3@hotmail.com
    > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > >
    > > For video editing RAID 0 rules.
    > >
    > > > When I used to use Photoshop 7 editing large (100MB plus) files was
    > > > inherently quicker on a RAID 0 array. I was, however, using SCSI
    > > > (Adaptec 2100S) which was a lot quicker than the equivalent ATA RAID 0.
    > >
    > > That's completely false.
    >
    > It's not, actually. At the time I had just purchased a new Adaptec
    > 2400A IDE RAID card and was getting poor performance from RAID 0.
    >
    > I finally managed to get Adaptec to do a straight swap for their 2100S,
    > a SCSI RAID card.
    >
    > The difference was noticeable.

    Liar/Fantast:

    " I have 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives in a RAID 0 configuration.
    The performance, even with 128MB of cache memory, is slower
    than a single IDE drive running off the motherboard."

    "My RAID 0 array consists of 3 x Fujitsu 10K rpm drives on an Adaptec
    2100s controller. I get 100MB/s writes**, which is probably ok for most."

    "I've done some benchmarking with my Adaptec and 128MB of cache
    memory. Data is written at around 350 - 450 MegaBYTES per second."

    >
    > Granted, using 10K rpm high speed IDE drives will sway the argument more
    > in IDE's favour, but taking reliability issues into account, SCSI wins
    > hands down for me.
    >
    > But I suppose you would require a lot of experience of both setups
    > before passing valid comment. I do have that experience.

    Your experience is obviously all made-up.

    >
    >
    > Odie
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >
    > Liar/Fantast:
    >
    > " I have 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives in a RAID 0 configuration.
    > The performance, even with 128MB of cache memory, is slower
    > than a single IDE drive running off the motherboard."

    At that stage, because of problems, that was the case.

    I suppose you know better - I mean, you were there, right?



    > "My RAID 0 array consists of 3 x Fujitsu 10K rpm drives on an Adaptec
    > 2100s controller. I get 100MB/s writes**, which is probably ok for most."

    > "I've done some benchmarking with my Adaptec and 128MB of cache
    > memory. Data is written at around 350 - 450 MegaBYTES per second."


    1. Burst.

    2. Burst to cache memory. According to drive test util.



    > >
    > > Granted, using 10K rpm high speed IDE drives will sway the argument more
    > > in IDE's favour, but taking reliability issues into account, SCSI wins
    > > hands down for me.
    > >
    > > But I suppose you would require a lot of experience of both setups
    > > before passing valid comment. I do have that experience.
    >
    > Your experience is obviously all made-up.


    You're a funny little man, Folkert. Why do you need to spend your time
    going through archive material?

    Shame - you should put your energy into more fruitful things.

    Anyway, you do make me laugh so!!!


    Odie
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    > "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4136D6AB.E22F6BA3@hotmail.com
    >> Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >> >
    >> > For video editing RAID 0 rules.
    >> >
    >> > > When I used to use Photoshop 7 editing large (100MB plus) files was
    >> > > inherently quicker on a RAID 0 array. I was, however, using SCSI
    >> > > (Adaptec 2100S) which was a lot quicker than the equivalent ATA RAID 0.
    >> >
    >> > That's completely false.
    >>
    >> It's not, actually. At the time I had just purchased a new Adaptec
    >> 2400A IDE RAID card and was getting poor performance from RAID 0.
    >>
    >> I finally managed to get Adaptec to do a straight swap for their 2100S,
    >> a SCSI RAID card.
    >>
    >> The difference was noticeable.

    > Liar/Fantast:

    > " I have 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives in a RAID 0 configuration.
    > The performance, even with 128MB of cache memory, is slower
    > than a single IDE drive running off the motherboard."

    That is possible, if something is misconfigured or broken. Otherwise not.

    > "My RAID 0 array consists of 3 x Fujitsu 10K rpm drives on an Adaptec
    > 2100s controller. I get 100MB/s writes**, which is probably ok for most."

    Given that I get 70MB/s sustained linear writes on a software RAID5
    under Linux in a PCI system (4 disks on the chipset, 3 on PCI) I would
    say this one is possible. However I would say not with standard PCI.
    The bus ist just not fast enough.

    > "I've done some benchmarking with my Adaptec and 128MB of cache
    > memory. Data is written at around 350 - 450 MegaBYTES per second."

    Agreed. Unless the benchmarks were smaller than the buffer memory,
    write buffering was turned on and the bus was at least PCI-X.
    A completely meaningless result nonetheless, if true.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:2prch5Fmo1dpU5@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > > " I have 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives in a RAID 0 configuration.
    > > The performance, even with 128MB of cache memory, is slower
    > > than a single IDE drive running off the motherboard."
    >
    > That is possible, if something is misconfigured or broken. Otherwise not.
    >
    There are some hardware RAID cards that perform this poorly.

    > > "My RAID 0 array consists of 3 x Fujitsu 10K rpm drives on an Adaptec
    > > 2100s controller. I get 100MB/s writes**, which is probably ok for most."
    >
    > Given that I get 70MB/s sustained linear writes on a software RAID5
    > under Linux in a PCI system (4 disks on the chipset, 3 on PCI) I would
    > say this one is possible. However I would say not with standard PCI.
    > The bus ist just not fast enough.
    >
    Clueless. Adaptec and LSI Ultra160 cards can do 120MB/s with RAID 0.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:2prch5Fmo1dpU5@uni-berlin.de
    > Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4136D6AB.E22F6BA3@hotmail.com
    > > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > For video editing RAID 0 rules.
    > > > >
    > > > > > When I used to use Photoshop 7 editing large (100MB plus) files was
    > > > > > inherently quicker on a RAID 0 array. I was, however, using SCSI
    > > > > > (Adaptec 2100S) which was a lot quicker than the equivalent ATA RAID 0.
    > > > >
    > > > > That's completely false.
    > > >
    > > > It's not, actually. At the time I had just purchased a new Adaptec
    > > > 2400A IDE RAID card and was getting poor performance from RAID 0.
    > > >
    > > > I finally managed to get Adaptec to do a straight swap for their 2100S,
    > > > a SCSI RAID card.
    > > >
    > > > The difference was noticeable.
    >
    > > Liar/Fantast:
    >
    > > " I have 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives in a RAID 0 configuration.
    > > The performance, even with 128MB of cache memory, is slower
    > > than a single IDE drive running off the motherboard."
    >
    > That is possible, if something is misconfigured or broken. Otherwise not.
    >
    > > "My RAID 0 array consists of 3 x Fujitsu 10K rpm drives on an Adaptec
    > > 2100s controller. I get 100MB/s writes**, which is probably ok for most."
    >
    > Given that I get 70MB/s sustained linear writes on a software RAID5
    > under Linux in a PCI system (4 disks on the chipset, 3 on PCI) I would
    > say this one is possible.

    > However I would say not with standard PCI.

    Standard PCI is what is on the 2100S.

    > The bus ist just not fast enough.

    Actually it *is* fast enough.

    >
    > > "I've done some benchmarking with my Adaptec and 128MB of cache
    > > memory. Data is written at around 350 - 450 MegaBYTES per second."
    >
    > Agreed. Unless the benchmarks were smaller than the buffer memory,
    > write buffering was turned on and the bus was at least

    > PCI-X.

    Nope, 64-bit 66MHz PCI would accomodate that nicely.

    > A completely meaningless result nonetheless, if true.
    >
    > Arno
Ask a new question

Read More

Workstations Storage