Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAID 0 is usually a foolish choice for desktops

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
July 2, 2004 3:45:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101

As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
chance of a hard-drive failure.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
install RAID 0 on desktops.

RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."


Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 2, 2004 6:19:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com>, millerdot90
@SPAMlessosu.edu says...
> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.

I strongly agree with you as long as we further qualify it to mean home
user desktops or systems that don't contain high-performance RAID
controllers.

In real-world testing of quality RAID systems, RAID-0 can have up to 20%
performance increase, but there isn't a single motherboard with built-in
RAID controller, and not one cheap (non-scsi) RAID controller that will
let users see this performance.

But, as I said above, with the qualification of quality, I completely
agree with you and have maintained the same stance for years.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 2, 2004 1:27:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4e9050bf45b03a98a71a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com>, millerdot90
> @SPAMlessosu.edu says...
> > For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> > install RAID 0 on desktops.
>
> I strongly agree with you as long as we further qualify it to mean home
> user desktops or systems that don't contain high-performance RAID
> controllers.
>
> In real-world testing of quality RAID systems, RAID-0 can have up to 20%
> performance increase, but there isn't a single motherboard with built-in
> RAID controller, and not one cheap (non-scsi) RAID controller that will
> let users see this performance.
>
> But, as I said above, with the qualification of quality, I completely
> agree with you and have maintained the same stance for years.
>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)

I would broadly agree. I have been using 2 x 74Gb Raptors in a RAID0 array
for several weeks. There is a noticeable improvement in performance,
especially video editing.

I was aware of the potential drive failure aspect - but I am not too
bothered about that, as my critical data is not the RAID drives, and I have
backups of my OS and apps on other drives.

As already said, probably not worth the money for your average desktop.
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]
Related resources
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 2, 2004 5:23:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Il Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:45:07 +0000, Milleron ha scritto:

> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>
> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> chance of a hard-drive failure.

It's pretty much three years I run Raid 0 now with various chipsets and
configurations (3ware, promise, high point and now SI) without any failure
problem.

BTW, become I do care about my data, I do backups often. For now I never
had to use my backups.

> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.

Becouse of improvements in performance?

> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer.

Anand need to do some real life computer: tests are not enough.
July 2, 2004 11:11:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Good points. The only thing I use RAID for is to kill bugs.


"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>
> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>
> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.
>
> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>
>
> Ron
July 3, 2004 2:46:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual CPU
system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core
opterons will bring a smile to everones faces.

- Tim

"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>
> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>
> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.
>
> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>
>
> Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 3, 2004 2:46:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Yes, I have a dual Pentium III system with 2 x 36Gb SCSI drives - pretty
quick in its day. :) 
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:cc3ecn$5ve$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual
CPU
> system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core
> opterons will bring a smile to everones faces.
>
> - Tim
>
> "Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
> > If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> > review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> > http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
> >
> > As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> > RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> > price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> > and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> > chance of a hard-drive failure.
> >
> > For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> > install RAID 0 on desktops.
> >
> > RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> > gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> > and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
> > performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
> > reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
> > makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
> >
> >
> > Ron
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 3, 2004 2:46:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:46:34 +1200, "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote:

>Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual CPU
>system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core
>opterons will bring a smile to everones faces.

What are NCQ drives?

Glad you still like SCSI. If you look at the pricing for some of
the high-perf 73 GB ATA drives, you're going to pay about what the
same drives cost in SCSI-land.

--W--

>
>- Tim
>
>"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
>news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
>> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
>> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
>> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>>
>> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
>> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
>> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
>> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
>> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>>
>> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
>> install RAID 0 on desktops.
>>
>> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
>> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
>> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
>> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
>> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
>> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>>
>>
>> Ron
>
July 3, 2004 5:09:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:23:11 +0200, _P_e_ar_lALegend <end_6@leg.it>
wrote:

>Il Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:45:07 +0000, Milleron ha scritto:
>
>> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
>> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
>> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>>
>> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
>> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
>> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
>> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
>> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>
>It's pretty much three years I run Raid 0 now with various chipsets and
>configurations (3ware, promise, high point and now SI) without any failure
>problem.
And every minute of every hour of every day that you operate this
RAID, you STILL have TWICE the chance of a HD failure that you would
have without it. Have you heard about the guy who jumped off the top
of a fifty-story building? As he passed the third floor, someone in a
window yelled "how you doing." The jumper yelled back "OK, so far."
>
>BTW, become I do care about my data, I do backups often. For now I never
>had to use my backups.
Keep making those backups!
>
>> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
>> install RAID 0 on desktops.
>
>Becouse of improvements in performance?
Didn't you read the article??? There are NO significant improvements
in performance.
>
>> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
>> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
>> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer.
>
>Anand need to do some real life computer: tests are not enough.

I disagree strongly on two counts:
1) Your so-called "real-life computer tests" are not tests at all.
They're nothing more than SUBJECTIVE impressions of performance,
strongly biased by the money and time you spent on the RAID, and they
mean absolutely nothing in the face of true OBJECTIVE tests.
2) AnandTech's benchmarks DID include "real-world" content-creation
benchmarks, and the results speak for themselves. There is NO
PERCEPTIBLE improvement in real-world applications with RAID 0.

Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 3, 2004 6:33:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.

You're overlooking the key element here Ron.

The GEEK factor :o )

Lorenzo


"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>
> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>
....
>
> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>
>
> Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 4, 2004 7:18:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

An interesing comment, the author notes that:

"The price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
and a single drive of the same capacity"

I detect a presumption that RAID is more expensive. In fact, it's often
LESS expensive. I've bought Western Digital 1200JB's (7200rpm, 8 meg
cache) for as low as $59. You cannot buy a 240 gig drive for $118.



Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
>>For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
>>install RAID 0 on desktops.
>
>
> You're overlooking the key element here Ron.
>
> The GEEK factor :o )
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> "Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
>
>>If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
>>review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
>>http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>>
>>As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
>>RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
>>price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
>>and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
>>chance of a hard-drive failure.
>>
>
> ...
>
>>RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
>>gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
>>and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
>>performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
>>reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
>>makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>>
>>
>>Ron
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 4, 2004 7:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <lGKFc.182800$DG4.76383@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com says...
> I detect a presumption that RAID is more expensive. In fact, it's often
> LESS expensive. I've bought Western Digital 1200JB's (7200rpm, 8 meg
> cache) for as low as $59. You cannot buy a 240 gig drive for $118.

No one ever suggested that a RAID-0 array capacity was cheaper than non-
RAID-0 capacity, the comment about about the COST paid for loss of
everything, down time, etc....

While a MIRROR could cost ($) as much as 4 times the cost of a RAID-0,
the MIRROR would provide redundancy and protection in case of drive
failure.

RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 4, 2004 4:59:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
> worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
>
Just do backups and u are fine.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 4, 2004 4:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.07.04.10.59.28.191525@leg.it>, end_6@leg.it says...
> > RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
> > worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
> >
> Just do backups and u are fine.

Most people don't even purchase something for backup, most don't even
know what a tape drive is, most people don't even know what Windows
Update is, most people don't even run the update for the AV program.

If you build an 120+GB RAID-0 Array, do you know that it would cost more
than the price of a new computer to back it up to tape?

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
July 4, 2004 4:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Although it does not absolutely ensure that the drives will actually be more
dependable, but the WD SATA Raptors do have a 1.2 million hour MTBF which is
significantly better than any PATA drives--thus RAID is less likely to fail
when using these enterprise drives than non-RAID that uses regular PATA
drives. This is in regard to the question about one of the drives failing
when using a RAID configuration.

MikeSp
---------------------------------------------

"_P_e_ar_lALegend" <end_6@leg.it> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.04.10.59.28.191525@leg.it...
> > RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
> > worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
> >
> Just do backups and u are fine.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 2:15:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> In article <pan.2004.07.04.10.59.28.191525@leg.it>, end_6@leg.it says...
>> > RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
>> > worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
>> >
>> Just do backups and u are fine.

> Most people don't even purchase something for backup, most don't even
> know what a tape drive is, most people don't even know what Windows
> Update is, most people don't even run the update for the AV program.

So I think those people wont go raid.
>
> If you build an 120+GB RAID-0 Array, do you know that it would cost more
> than the price of a new computer to back it up to tape?

Well, DVDs backup? In this days dvds are pretty much cheap, also double
layer. Or maybe just backup valuable data?

Considering many people reinstall OS every season change, it wont be a
real problem to reinstall OS. :-)

BTW, I'm with the same upgrade system formatted in 1996! And I do have
Raid 0 starting in 2000.

Then, again, in normal condition, Raid 0 wont fail.

It's incredible how low level is the understanding and the misconception
of average users. :-(((

It remind of the time when people got worried about PCI and then they
demonized USB and now they do demonize raid 0 :-)))))
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 3:24:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.07.04.20.15.53.801782@leg.it>, end_6@leg.it says...
>
> Then, again, in normal condition, Raid 0 wont fail.
>
> It's incredible how low level is the understanding and the misconception
> of average users. :-(((
>
> It remind of the time when people got worried about PCI and then they
> demonized USB and now they do demonize raid 0 :-)))))

Well, I can assure you that I completely understand all of the
electronics and methods behind raid, raid controllers, and MTBF as it
relates to real-world installations.

RAID-0 as long as there are no glitches in the system, the controller
card, no glitches in power, no failures in the drives, is a nice way to
get a little performance boost in drive bandwidth, but, when you take
into consideration all of the things that can render a RAID-O array
dead/unreadable, then it's hardly worth it.

Yea, I know, you've had it working without problem - none of us have
said it doesn't work, in fact, it works quite well. The problem is that
when there is a "glitch" and you expect to recover from it, you have
twice the chance that you won't recover without loss as you do with a
single drive or a MIRROR.

I don't know anyone that didn't like PCI, but, as a IT professional, I
can't stand USB, at least when you have more than one device per USB
port. I've seen to many of those little 12" screen laptops where
everything has to be chained to a single USB port and then they start
adding hubs... It's no end of problems. Don't take this wrong either,
USB for single chain devices is great - much better than Serial!

Now, in case you missed the point of RAID-0 in this discussion, it's
that RAID-0 is not fault tolerant and offers more opportunity for
Disaster than a single drive system - is a basic statistic - two drive
needed to make the system work means a higher probability that one drive
will fail more frequently than a single drive in another system.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 4:16:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Milleron wrote:

> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>
> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>
> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how RAID0 can claim to be RAID
at all.

RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.

RAID0 has no Redundancy, therefore it's not RAID.

> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>
>
> Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 4:24:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I think Anand is not true.
He used tests just for desktop performance. Minimal disk load. Much more for
graphics, processor and chipset :-(.
I dont agree, that RAID 0 for desktop is nonsense. A lot of people need
great disk subsystem performance. AV editing and many others.

Anand didnt do tests with copy from 1 partition to the second, no DVD
burning and normal office work etc or Database creation and indexing.
I think, that reliability and SMART is now much bigger than before 2-3yrs
and price is good for two smaller disks than one bigger.

Pleva
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 4:37:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

There is one major flaw in his article. He claims that the biggest possible
stripe size provides the best performance. In fact usually a stripe size of
16K or 32k for two drives is usually optimal. Also Anand doesn't seem to
understand the definition of what a stripe is.

A stripe is the set of data than spans the entire RAID 0 array until it
starts back on the first drive again. A stripe unit is the amount/unit of
data on a single drive in a RAID 0 set until the linear stream starts on the
next drive.

"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>
> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>
> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
> install RAID 0 on desktops.
>
> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>
>
> Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 4:39:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b51c5f96eed13ff98a74a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <pan.2004.07.04.10.59.28.191525@leg.it>, end_6@leg.it says...
> > > RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
> > > worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
> > >
> > Just do backups and u are fine.
>
> Most people don't even purchase something for backup, most don't even
> know what a tape drive is, most people don't even know what Windows
> Update is, most people don't even run the update for the AV program.
>
> If you build an 120+GB RAID-0 Array, do you know that it would cost more
> than the price of a new computer to back it up to tape?

Tape, god no. Use a SATA drive in a removeable tray ~$220 for 250GB.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 6:50:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <Xo1Gc.60325$OB3.45145@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> In fact usually a stripe size of
> 16K or 32k for two drives is usually optimal. Also Anand doesn't seem to
> understand the definition of what a stripe is.

Stripe size is optimal based on the type of data being accessed, which,
as most people tend to overgeneralise, is different based on what the
primary function is for the system.

As an example:

1) Database - larger stripes are better
2) Large images or other LARGE files - larger is better
3) Most home (non-soho/non business) systems - smaller
4) Video editing - larger
5) Web Page Design - smaller
6) Games - smaller

And the list goes on.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 6:52:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <ar1Gc.192846$Gx4.29575@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b51c5f96eed13ff98a74a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <pan.2004.07.04.10.59.28.191525@leg.it>, end_6@leg.it says...
> > > > RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
> > > > worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
> > > >
> > > Just do backups and u are fine.
> >
> > Most people don't even purchase something for backup, most don't even
> > know what a tape drive is, most people don't even know what Windows
> > Update is, most people don't even run the update for the AV program.
> >
> > If you build an 120+GB RAID-0 Array, do you know that it would cost more
> > than the price of a new computer to back it up to tape?
>
> Tape, god no. Use a SATA drive in a removeable tray ~$220 for 250GB.

Removable drives are great options for off-line backup. I just installed
a 1.2TB array/server to act as a backup storage solution. Everything in
the office is backed up to it, about 2 weeks worth of backups, and then
the tape drive is used once a week to backup the latest Friday (takes
more than 1 tape.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 7:46:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b528c1ef34106a298a755@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <Xo1Gc.60325$OB3.45145@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > In fact usually a stripe size of
> > 16K or 32k for two drives is usually optimal. Also Anand doesn't seem
to
> > understand the definition of what a stripe is.
>
> Stripe size is optimal based on the type of data being accessed, which,
> as most people tend to overgeneralise, is different based on what the
> primary function is for the system.
>
> As an example:
>
> 1) Database - larger stripes are better

Wrong. Stripe units 2x-3x the average record size is optimal.

> 2) Large images or other LARGE files - larger is better

Wrong, The stripe size that optimizes sustained transfer rate is best here
and often that's NOT large stripe size.

> 3) Most home (non-soho/non business) systems - smaller
> 4) Video editing - larger

No.

> 5) Web Page Design - smaller
> 6) Games - smaller
>
> And the list goes on.

And you make these up how?
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 7:46:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b528c9bad3258df98a756@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <ar1Gc.192846$Gx4.29575@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b51c5f96eed13ff98a74a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > > In article <pan.2004.07.04.10.59.28.191525@leg.it>, end_6@leg.it
says...
> > > > > RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just
not
> > > > > worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives.
> > > > >
> > > > Just do backups and u are fine.
> > >
> > > Most people don't even purchase something for backup, most don't even
> > > know what a tape drive is, most people don't even know what Windows
> > > Update is, most people don't even run the update for the AV program.
> > >
> > > If you build an 120+GB RAID-0 Array, do you know that it would cost
more
> > > than the price of a new computer to back it up to tape?
> >
> > Tape, god no. Use a SATA drive in a removeable tray ~$220 for 250GB.
>
> Removable drives are great options for off-line backup. I just installed
> a 1.2TB array/server to act as a backup storage solution. Everything in
> the office is backed up to it, about 2 weeks worth of backups, and then
> the tape drive is used once a week to backup the latest Friday (takes
> more than 1 tape.

Forget the tape and use a removeable HD.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 6:34:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <Na4Gc.193628$Gx4.142602@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b528c1ef34106a298a755@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <Xo1Gc.60325$OB3.45145@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > In fact usually a stripe size of
> > > 16K or 32k for two drives is usually optimal. Also Anand doesn't seem
> to
> > > understand the definition of what a stripe is.
> >
> > Stripe size is optimal based on the type of data being accessed, which,
> > as most people tend to overgeneralise, is different based on what the
> > primary function is for the system.
> >
> > As an example:
> >
> > 1) Database - larger stripes are better
>
> Wrong. Stripe units 2x-3x the average record size is optimal.
>
> > 2) Large images or other LARGE files - larger is better
>
> Wrong, The stripe size that optimizes sustained transfer rate is best here
> and often that's NOT large stripe size.
>
> > 3) Most home (non-soho/non business) systems - smaller
> > 4) Video editing - larger
>
> No.
>
> > 5) Web Page Design - smaller
> > 6) Games - smaller
> >
> > And the list goes on.
>
> And you make these up how?

I'm not sure how to reply to you without ticking you off, but you are
wrong, larger average file sizes means larger stripe sizes for better
performance, which is exactly what I wrote.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 6:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <YB4Gc.7399$WM5.337595@news20.bellglobal.com>,
triffid@nebula.net says...
> For the life of me, I cannot understand how RAID0 can claim to be RAID
> at all.

It does not mean data-redundancy, it means more than one drive doing the
job of one drive.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 5, 2004 11:09:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b5331506678f48498a758@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <Na4Gc.193628$Gx4.142602@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b528c1ef34106a298a755@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > > In article <Xo1Gc.60325$OB3.45145@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > > In fact usually a stripe size of
> > > > 16K or 32k for two drives is usually optimal. Also Anand doesn't
seem
> > to
> > > > understand the definition of what a stripe is.
> > >
> > > Stripe size is optimal based on the type of data being accessed,
which,
> > > as most people tend to overgeneralise, is different based on what the
> > > primary function is for the system.
> > >
> > > As an example:
> > >
> > > 1) Database - larger stripes are better
> >
> > Wrong. Stripe units 2x-3x the average record size is optimal.
> >
> > > 2) Large images or other LARGE files - larger is better
> >
> > Wrong, The stripe size that optimizes sustained transfer rate is best
here
> > and often that's NOT large stripe size.
> >
> > > 3) Most home (non-soho/non business) systems - smaller
> > > 4) Video editing - larger
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > 5) Web Page Design - smaller
> > > 6) Games - smaller
> > >
> > > And the list goes on.
> >
> > And you make these up how?
>
> I'm not sure how to reply to you without ticking you off, but you are
> wrong, larger average file sizes means larger stripe sizes for better
> performance, which is exactly what I wrote.

Utter nonsense. There is NO first order relation between file size and
stripe size.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 12:46:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <0IhGc.197449$Gx4.171408@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > I'm not sure how to reply to you without ticking you off, but you are
> > wrong, larger average file sizes means larger stripe sizes for better
> > performance, which is exactly what I wrote.
>
> Utter nonsense. There is NO first order relation between file size and
> stripe size.

You are correct, there is no relation between file size and stripe size,
but there is a relation between file size, stripe size and performance.

Envision stripe size like you would cluster size and then you'll
understand.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 1:13:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b5389ad5271855f98a75c@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <0IhGc.197449$Gx4.171408@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > I'm not sure how to reply to you without ticking you off, but you are
> > > wrong, larger average file sizes means larger stripe sizes for better
> > > performance, which is exactly what I wrote.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. There is NO first order relation between file size and
> > stripe size.
>
> You are correct, there is no relation between file size and stripe size,
> but there is a relation between file size, stripe size and performance.
>
> Envision stripe size like you would cluster size and then you'll
> understand.


You are simply WRONG. The concept of cluster size and stripe size have no
relation to one another. Cluster is a logical software concept of disk
storage allocation. Stripe size has to do with physical allocation across
drives.

Envision the difference between stripe size and stripe unit size. Stripe
size has nothing to do with performance but stripe unit size often does.
The optimal stripe unit size for streaming/large-file performance is one
that quickly starts and then maintains the continuous stream of data on all
the drives in a RAID 0 set. The goal is not to lose any revolutions. If
the stripe unit size is too large then the initial OS read request may not
be large enough to get all the HDs in the RAID 0 set starting a read. If
the stripe unit size is too large then the drive's read ahead may not be
sufficient to continue the stream until the next read request arrives. Fail
these criteria and you lose revolutions and therfore non-optimal streaming
performance. Stick to an area where you have some actual knowledge.

Large stripes are non-optimal for streaming. There's a middle ground that's
usually optimal and that depends on controller HW design, RAID drivers
design, OS design and the HD's internal caching and other behaviors and
settings.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 1:14:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <iwjGc.63250$OB3.27883@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> Cluster is a logical software concept of disk
> storage allocation. Stripe size has to do with physical allocation across
> drives.

Yep, I agree and we're not going to agree on it. It could be that we're
thinking the same thing and just not able to put it into type, but I'll
bow out of this thread with what I believe.

There are two things that I know about Stripes:

1) Number of drives in the stripe set has an impact on performance.
2) Size of the stripe on each drive also impacts performance.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
July 6, 2004 1:28:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

SCSI can be cheaper.

An ultra 320 raid controller costs big time. A top end 8 drive SATA raid
controller will cost about the same per disc.

73 GB SCSI drives are (here) cheaper than the raptors and have comparable
stats (the raptors come out very well in many benchmarks). So with 14 drives
on one RAID controller (you never should as this exceeds the IO performance
of the controller by a long way) you have one nice clear solution especially
if it is dual channel. I have been playing with an Intel controller recently
(ex LSI or something) and it has all the bells and whistles... yum.

Needless to say, the raptors will come down in price a little faster than
the SCSI, and a new drive design or two is no doubt already in the wings. So
things are improving! Gone are the days of 5, 10, 20 MBs and other slow
SCSI, the old yich clunkity clunk IDE drives. Thank goodness. Now we have
IDE drives with 1 year warrantee. That sends a shiver down my spine - if the
drive doesn't have a 3 year warrantee then its no good.

- Tim




"Winey" <NOSPAMME@no-one-here.com> wrote in message
news:v9ebe01c582mi333rjhtrflplolt0at7s1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:46:34 +1200, "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
>>Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual
>>CPU
>>system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core
>>opterons will bring a smile to everones faces.
>
> What are NCQ drives?
>
> Glad you still like SCSI. If you look at the pricing for some of
> the high-perf 73 GB ATA drives, you're going to pay about what the
> same drives cost in SCSI-land.
>
> --W--
>
>>
>>- Tim
>>
>>"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:4689e01rsqu2l89n2of9ehcurvldhg69od@4ax.com...
>>> If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge
>>> review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com:
>>> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
>>>
>>> As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with
>>> RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The
>>> price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
>>> and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the
>>> chance of a hard-drive failure.
>>>
>>> For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to
>>> install RAID 0 on desktops.
>>>
>>> RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "If you haven't
>>> gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place,
>>> and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
>>> performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in
>>> reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure,
>>> makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 1:28:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:ccb6um$ni0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> SCSI can be cheaper.
>
> An ultra 320 raid controller costs big time. A top end 8 drive SATA raid
> controller will cost about the same per disc.
>
> 73 GB SCSI drives are (here) cheaper than the raptors and have comparable
> stats (the raptors come out very well in many benchmarks).

No, comparable SCSI HDs are NOT cheaper.

>So with 14 drives
> on one RAID controller (you never should as this exceeds the IO
performance
> of the controller by a long way) you have one nice clear solution
especially
> if it is dual channel. I have been playing with an Intel controller
recently
> (ex LSI or something) and it has all the bells and whistles... yum.
>
> Needless to say, the raptors will come down in price a little faster than
> the SCSI, and a new drive design or two is no doubt already in the wings.
So
> things are improving! Gone are the days of 5, 10, 20 MBs and other slow
> SCSI, the old yich clunkity clunk IDE drives. Thank goodness. Now we have
> IDE drives with 1 year warrantee. That sends a shiver down my spine - if
the
> drive doesn't have a 3 year warrantee then its no good.

Nonsense. The warranty length is simply a price point decision and say
nothing about reliability. Many ATA HDs have 3 year warranties.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 2:05:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b539033c0367a3598a75d@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <iwjGc.63250$OB3.27883@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > Cluster is a logical software concept of disk
> > storage allocation. Stripe size has to do with physical allocation
across
> > drives.
>
> Yep, I agree and we're not going to agree on it. It could be that we're
> thinking the same thing and just not able to put it into type, but I'll
> bow out of this thread with what I believe.
>
> There are two things that I know about Stripes:
>
> 1) Number of drives in the stripe set has an impact on performance.

Yep. more means faster streaming.

> 2) Size of the stripe on each drive also impacts performance.

That's called the 'stripe unit' size and does affect performance. Not too
big and not too small is generally optimal for streaming.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 2:20:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <FgkGc.198252$Gx4.43816@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b539033c0367a3598a75d@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <iwjGc.63250$OB3.27883@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > Cluster is a logical software concept of disk
> > > storage allocation. Stripe size has to do with physical allocation
> across
> > > drives.
> >
> > Yep, I agree and we're not going to agree on it. It could be that we're
> > thinking the same thing and just not able to put it into type, but I'll
> > bow out of this thread with what I believe.
> >
> > There are two things that I know about Stripes:
> >
> > 1) Number of drives in the stripe set has an impact on performance.
>
> Yep. more means faster streaming.
>
> > 2) Size of the stripe on each drive also impacts performance.
>
> That's called the 'stripe unit' size and does affect performance. Not too
> big and not too small is generally optimal for streaming.

See, we were on the same page, I just wasn't using the proper terms for
it. I also was not talking about streaming and more thinking of
performance for specific types of files.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 3:26:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b539fa2fc1526f498a75e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <FgkGc.198252$Gx4.43816@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b539033c0367a3598a75d@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > > In article <iwjGc.63250$OB3.27883@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > > Cluster is a logical software concept of disk
> > > > storage allocation. Stripe size has to do with physical allocation
> > across
> > > > drives.
> > >
> > > Yep, I agree and we're not going to agree on it. It could be that
we're
> > > thinking the same thing and just not able to put it into type, but
I'll
> > > bow out of this thread with what I believe.
> > >
> > > There are two things that I know about Stripes:
> > >
> > > 1) Number of drives in the stripe set has an impact on performance.
> >
> > Yep. more means faster streaming.
> >
> > > 2) Size of the stripe on each drive also impacts performance.
> >
> > That's called the 'stripe unit' size and does affect performance. Not
too
> > big and not too small is generally optimal for streaming.
>
> See, we were on the same page, I just wasn't using the proper terms for
> it. I also was not talking about streaming and more thinking of
> performance for specific types of files.

Big files and streaming is the same thing. A big file for this purpose is
one whose size is greater than the stripe size.

Multithreaded/multitasked small record random I/O is optimal performance
wise when the stripe unit is about 3x the average record size.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
July 6, 2004 3:35:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:cccltb$nrt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Ron,
>
> Shop around - the prices are near identical (raptor vs. 10kRPM SCSI).

I did that just recently. 73GB Raptors are about $190 and the Atlas 10K IV
is about $300.
July 6, 2004 7:11:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:18:41 GMT, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>An interesing comment, the author notes that:
>
>"The price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID
>and a single drive of the same capacity"
>
>I detect a presumption that RAID is more expensive. In fact, it's often
>LESS expensive. I've bought Western Digital 1200JB's (7200rpm, 8 meg
>cache) for as low as $59. You cannot buy a 240 gig drive for $118.
>
>
>

I got a wd250 Gig for $129 after rebate,

Picked one up for $139 with no rebate.

Shop til you drop ;) 
!