Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IDE RAID 0 vs. Single Raptor

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 31, 2005 5:24:59 PM

I'm trying to decide whether to buy a second WD 160GB IDE drive to run in RAID 0 or buy a new WD 74GB Raptor to run by itself. Which would give me better performance in games (i.e. Battlefield 2)? My current system is:
Asus A8NSLI-Deluxe, GeForce 7800 GT, 160 GB WD IDE HDD, 120 GB WD IDE HDD, 1GB Corsair RAM (2x512 DDR). My HDD performance seems to be the bottleneck in my system.
A third option would be to purchase a new 320 GB WD SATA drive to run by itself.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks.

More about : ide raid single raptor

December 31, 2005 6:40:14 PM

Im pretty sure that buying a single Raptor would give you much more performance than RAID 0 would. Using RAID you don't see much of a performance gain, maybe a little bit with loading maps, but probably not much at all. You would see more performance using a Raptor.
January 1, 2006 3:00:13 AM

A single Raptor would only give you similar gains as you mention, but not as much as two 7200rpm RAID 0 drives.
Yes, 2 7200 rpm drives in RAID 0 will out perform a single Raptor in thoroughput speeds, and would be much cheaper and drive space than buying a Raptor. Keep in mind tho, that you will have twice the chance for data failure since if one drive fails, so does the array.
Related resources
January 1, 2006 4:05:53 PM

Hmmm,
Sounds like I'm getting two different answers. The first response is saying the single Raptor would be faster, and the second response is saying the RAID 0 array would be faster. Can anyone clear this up?
Thanks.
January 1, 2006 4:30:27 PM

I have a single Raptor (74GB) and I'm perfectly happy. Although not formally benchmarked, I can tell a difference between it and the older IDE 7200 RPM drive it replaced... a considerable one. In a perfect world you'd have a RAID 0 array consisting of 2 Raptors... might want to hold off on a drive purcase as a new Raptor (larger with a SATA-2 interface) is just around the corner.
January 1, 2006 4:55:17 PM

wait for the new raptor to come out, then decide.
January 1, 2006 4:56:00 PM

I am using the A8R-MVP with dual Raptors in RAID 0, and dual WD 16MB cache 7200RPM 250GB drives as RAID 1 for data.
I get average benchmark transfer of around 110MB per second with the RAID 0 Raptors, and around 60MB per second with the dual WD in RAID 1.
RAID 1 does not increase read speed much, and hurts write speed. BM my SATA 1 Raptor singly using ULi's controller driver utility shows it sustains around 70MB per second alone, and my SATA2 WD 16MB cache drive using same ULi BM sustains around 59MB per second.
So definately, two 7200 drives in RAID 0 would beat hands down any single Raptor in transfer speed.
January 1, 2006 4:58:51 PM

RAID 1 does not increase read OR write speed in any way. Plain and simple.
January 1, 2006 5:14:48 PM

Read and learn before spouting false information...

Quote:
RAID 1, also called "Mirror".

In a mirrored volume, two exact copies of data are written to two member disks. Thus a "shadow" disk is an exact copy of its "primary" disk. This layout can tolerate loss of any single disk (read requests will be satisfied from the functional disk). Mirrored volume features twice the read speed of a single disk: when requested to read data blocks 1 through 6, the mirror routes odd blocks (D1, D3, D5) to be read from Disk 1 and even blocks (D2, D4, D6) from Disk 2 so that each disk does half of the job. Write speed is not improved because all copies of a mirror need updating.

It is possible to have more than two disks in the mirrored set (e.g. three-disk configuration - "primary" with two "shadows"), but such a setup is extremely rare due to the high disk space overhead (66% overhead in three-disk configuration).

Exactly two disks are required for a RAID 1 volume. RAID 1 layout imposes 50% storage space overhead.

http://www.z-a-recovery.com/art-raid.htm
January 1, 2006 5:17:47 PM

Quote:
RAID 1: Mirroring and Duplexing

RAID Level 1 requires a minimum of 2 drives to implement

Advantages:
* One Write or two Reads possible per mirrored pair
* Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks
* 100% redundancy of data means no rebuild is necessary in case of a disk failure, just a copy to the replacement disk
* Transfer rate per block is equal to that of a single disk
* Under certain circumstances, RAID 1 can sustain multiple simultaneous drive failures
* Simplest RAID storage subsystem design

Disadvantages:
*Highest disk overhead of all RAID types (100%) - inefficient
*Lower write performance

Recommended Use:
*Accounting , Payroll , Financial
*Any application requiring very high availability
*Dual data storage from important files

http://www.madshrimps.be/printart.php?articID=69
January 1, 2006 8:12:21 PM

Thanks RichPLS, the benchmarks help a lot. Looks like the choice is pretty clear for me. Circuit City currently has the 160 GB WD IDE drive for $50 after rebates. This is the same drive I already have, so for $50 I can go with RAID 0. Like you said, the down side is doubling the chance of failure.
Thanks again.
January 2, 2006 4:17:28 AM

RAID0 is good only for video streaming.
For gaming/working RAID0 is not worth it.
January 2, 2006 5:36:50 AM

If you are worried about performance, 2 ATA's in a RAID 0 definitely would trump the raptor. Listen to RichPLS.

RAID 0 only helps where alot of HDD I/O is concerned. e.g. video editing, audio editing, anything with virtual memory. Not sure if it will help battlefield, i would think your 1 GB of RAM would be good enough. Will definitely help on the load times for everything.
January 2, 2006 7:07:19 AM

Quote:
RAID0 is good only for video streaming.
For gaming/working RAID0 is not worth it.


Thats not true. RAID 0 will increase your read speed in any situation. It is only really noticable when performing larger or more instensive reads, but definately more than just video streaming. It helps for Video playback, loading games, db access, video editing, file/music sharing, and any other I/O intensive app.

The downside is that your vulnerability to dataloss is doubled and there is a little more overhead in writes than a single drive (due to striping the data).
January 2, 2006 7:17:25 AM

Quote:
RAID0 is good only for video streaming.
For gaming/working RAID0 is not worth it.


Thats not true. RAID 0 will increase your read speed in any situation. It is only really noticable when performing larger or more instensive reads, but definately more than just video streaming. It helps for Video playback, loading games, db access, video editing, file/music sharing, and any other I/O intensive app.

The downside is that your vulnerability to dataloss is doubled and there is a little more overhead in writes than a single drive (due to striping the data).

RAID 0 will decrease read speed when reading smaller files since the access time is higher compared to a single drive.
January 2, 2006 7:53:23 AM

Thats true, I should have mentioned that and not applied the "any" generality.
January 2, 2006 11:06:41 AM

Which can be tuned. If stripe size is set higher, small files are just transfered without being striped leaving only larger files to get speed bump from raid.
January 3, 2006 2:21:59 AM

There's a thread over at overclockers.com where someone tested a single 74gb raptor against 2 raptors in raid 0 in games.The single 74gb beat the 2 raid 0 raptors in every game he tested.
January 3, 2006 5:01:58 AM

Quote:
There's a thread over at overclockers.com where someone tested a single 74gb raptor against 2 raptors in raid 0 in games.The single 74gb beat the 2 raid 0 raptors in every game he tested.


Could you link that? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks!
January 3, 2006 5:05:59 AM

Quote:
There's a thread over at overclockers.com where someone tested a single 74gb raptor against 2 raptors in raid 0 in games.The single 74gb beat the 2 raid 0 raptors in every game he tested.


Could you link that? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks!

I don't know which test he was referring to but I found this one:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1063/index02.asp
January 3, 2006 5:44:53 PM

First off, thanks for the links!!! I only read the 1st 2 pages... so sorry if this was covered already in the other thread...

I think it should be noted that the original poster on that thread said:
"What I have seen from my experience is that
1) raid-0 on drives other then raptors show a noticable improvement over regular 7200rpm drives.
2) raid-0 on raptors doesnt show much of an improvement at all (unless of course you need to use the higher bandwidth... but most people dont... espically not for gaming)"

So in our case, 2 non-raptors in RAID 0 vs a single raptor, i think our conclusions still stand. It seems to me that these times are only for 1 Raptor vs 2 Raptors in RAID. Not 1 Raptor vs 2 7200rpms in RAID.

We should also note that he defragmented his HDD before each test, which practically defeats RAID 0 since RAID 0's benefits are augmented when a drive is more fragmented. The reason RAID 0 is faster is because 2 HDD's seek times working together cannot beat 1 HDD's seek times for 2 reads.

To explain further - a RAID 0 will have data on HDD A and HDD B.
Say a data stripe contains the information 1234567890. The first half, 12345, will be written on HDD A. The second half, 67890, is written on HDD B. RAID 0 decreases times because on a single drive, (let us assume that the 1st and 2nd halves of the data are not consecutive on the HDD), there must be 2 seeks for the data, 1 for the 1st half and 1 for the 2nd half. So given that HDD's are about 8-9ms for a seek, thats like 16-18ms to get your data. On a RAID 0, each half is on separate HDDs, so the seek is cut in 1/2. So it finds the 2 halves at the same time, so the eventual seek time is 8-9ms (depends on your HDDs) + some RAID overhead (not a whole lot).

So when he ran his raptor tests, since it was defragmented, the single raptor did not need any other seek times. The RAID 0 configuration, however, needed to deal w/ the RAID overhead - putting the data together and passing it on.
The real world does not have a completely defragged HDD every time.

Also your RAID controller matters. tomshardware does RAID controller comparisons and you can see that there are differences.

Thoughts?

*edit* corrected a typo from defragmented to fragmented... heh.
January 3, 2006 6:26:47 PM

That is a mean drive, with a mean price of $300.
I got 2 74gig raptors RAID0 for less than that, and 2 x 250gig WD 16mb cache SATA2 drives for $230 both.
I am sure my two 250gig 16MB cache SATA2 RAID0 drives would outperform one new single Raptor 150gig SATA2 drive.
January 3, 2006 6:36:19 PM

you are probably right, though they are at last adding 16MB cache, and NCQ to the drives.
January 3, 2006 7:00:30 PM

Getting better performance out of games with a Raptor will work but dont expect any major performance. Hard drives for the most part gives on great performance gains to large databases. I would suggest a 4 or 8 giga PCI solid state drive. Your not going to find any drives that can touch the performance. :) 
January 3, 2006 7:41:37 PM

Quote:
Getting better performance out of games with a Raptor will work but dont expect any major performance. Hard drives for the most part gives on great performance gains to large databases. I would suggest a 4 or 8 giga PCI solid state drive. Your not going to find any drives that can touch the performance. :) 


Or the Price Premium 8O
January 3, 2006 9:16:20 PM

Quote:
Or the Price Premium Shocked

Higher price but well worth it. For the price of a Raptor you can buy two giga memory and a program that lets you use the 2 giga as a solid state drive. Two giga would be tight for some games but should allow you to load most of what you'll need. The price should be less than the raptor for both memory sticks and the program. Note: This should only be used for a 4 giga motherboard. :p 
January 3, 2006 11:15:01 PM

i would think that a solid state disk would be most beneficial as your swap space. installing things on it won't be that great since unless you used those programs alot and you have to worry about power loss. And wouldn't that corrupt your windows registry if the solid state disk failed?

i might look into that for my next computer build... at least for the swap space.
January 4, 2006 2:46:39 PM

Looks frikin' awesome for desktop performance!
January 4, 2006 4:00:07 PM

i was trying to decide about RAID0 or RAID1 so I went to the WD site. A few curious things popped up. Their site said that RAID0 must have NEW HDD's & RAID1 can use one OLD and one NEW HDD as long as the new HDD was equal to or larger than the old HDD. Is this BS so WD can sell more Raptors or what?
Also, I asked them if a low level format would make an old HDD appear as new (no answer yet). As all other drive makers do, they do have a free DL to do this formatting along w/ other repair stuff.
This topic sure got hot!
January 4, 2006 4:39:29 PM

From my knowledge, thats total BS. It shouldn't matter. In a perfect situation, you would have 2 identical HDD models to have a good RAID 0 or 1. Perhaps that is what they are referring to.

But its certainly possible to have different ones and different capacities. Unsure on the effect of that on overall performance.
January 7, 2006 3:13:03 AM

Quote:
From my knowledge, thats total BS. It shouldn't matter. In a perfect situation, you would have 2 identical HDD models to have a good RAID 0 or 1. Perhaps that is what they are referring to.

But its certainly possible to have different ones and different capacities. Unsure on the effect of that on overall performance.


Its not total BS, but you guys are looking at it worng.

What they mean by new Hard Drives for RAID 0 is they have to be freshly formatted and setup from the start as RAID0. This has nothing to do with sales. They should to be the same size, as you are wasting any excess capacity of the larger drive. Think about it, you can't take an existing drive, add another, and setup the RAID 0 striping process on it without a format. You should NOT need a low level format for this to work.

RAID 1 on the other hand, can use a Drive that already contains data, I.E. an old drive. RAID 1 is a mirror, or copy of a drive, so to setup RAID 1, you can make a copy of an existing drive on the "new" (formatted) drive. You can either set this up at the outset, or you can do this with a drive thats lready in place.
January 7, 2006 7:55:22 AM

I assumed that he meant that he would format his old drive when he went to RAID 0. Sorry if that wasn't the case.

I thought you could have 2 different sized HDDs, only the partitions should be the same size for RAID 0?

How would RAID 1 work if the new HDD (system) was bigger than the old HDD?? I mean from a mirroring point, not from a restore from old to new standpoint. Wouldn't you just run out of space and wouldn't the RAID fail then?
January 7, 2006 8:01:44 AM

He would have to format his old drive to go to RAID 0, but not necesarily a low level format. A windows format is enough.

You can have two different HD sizes for RAID 0, but you are limited to the smaller size, and lose the rest of the space on the larger drive.

In RAID 1, you are limited to the size of the smaller drive as well when you set up the mirror. You will run out of space (wasted space again), but it won't fail, you will just end up with a full drive when that happens.
January 7, 2006 6:16:13 PM

Yeah, a low-level format is for when you want to give your computer away or donate it or something. Heh, my friend once low-levelled his HDD and forgot about backing up his pictures (he thought the low level was a high level). Then he asked if I could recover it. That was a pretty sad day.

On a RAID 0 w/ different sized HDD's, couldn't you partition the unused space on the bigger HDD as just another disk partition? Surely that must be possible?

Thanks for the info, it will be stored in my brain. :) 
January 7, 2006 6:22:53 PM

I'm not sure if that is possible, but I do not think so. RAID, especially striping, uses a decent amount of I/O. I think the disk has to be dedicated to the RAID, so there are no resources to acess another partition.

Anyone know for sure?
January 9, 2006 7:27:04 PM

This guy has 2 physical HDD's and a few partitions and 2 are in RAID 0 at the end. And it looks like he has 2 RAID 1s or something.

Besides, there must be some way to do it if Intel's MATRIX storage technology can do RAID 0 and RAID 1 on 2 physical drives.

hmmm, thoughts?
January 9, 2006 8:40:26 PM

RAID 0 may be fast however the chance something will go wrong also increases by a factor of 2.

If one of your RAID 0 drives dies ALL your data is gone.

If your controller dies it may also be impossible to move the RAID 0 array to another machine.

RAID 0 has NO redundancy whatsoever so take that into consideration when using it.

If your data is not critical or if you religiously perform daily backups then go for it.

RAID 0 = no redundancy FAST
RAID 1 = mirror = 2 way redundancy SLOWER
RAID 5 = you can lose one drive without data loss FASTER than RAID 1
RAID 6 = you can lose two drives without any data loss FASTER than RAID 1

Tom's hardware also had a nice RAID 6 article recently I suggest reading it :-)

From wikipedia:

Quote:
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF)) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members—so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives. Data can be recovered using special tools. However, it will be incomplete and most likely corrupt.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_0
January 9, 2006 9:07:37 PM

Right. Just read the headlines and skipped all the squabbling. Here's my pennys worth...

1. I've found that 2 drives feel quicker in Raid 0 than a single raptor did. I did only use the 37gig varient which I've read is a little slower.
2. If 1 drive fails in an array. You lose the lot.
3. If your single raptor fails, you lose the lot.

***If you want performance, you invariably will have a storage drive, and the OS on the array. Reinstalling the OS and software takes about 2 hours if you iinclude office, and all the updates. Negligible in my opinion.

4. Raptors make a high pitch noise, and seem to get VERY HOT. I've got 2 samsung spinpoints (only 40gb each), and have raid 0'd them and I find this feels quicker than the raptors I had, very quiet, and dont create too much heat!

Dont get me wrong, but I loved the performance of the raptors but not at the expense of being able to use the PC and the noise of the PC intefering with my enjoyment .

God. I sound like one of those hippies that wouldn't buy a ferrari in case they made too much noise. I'm turning into.... my father!!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!!

But that's just what I think....

Mike
January 9, 2006 11:29:49 PM

Some of the described performance limitations of RAID is due to the controller, driver, stripe/block size and software being used to test.

Some test software run sequentially and don't pipeline enough transactions to make use of the multiple drives. If you have one outstanding transaction at a time don't expect two drives to be twice as quick.

Some controllers (eg. cheap or inbuilt) don't interleave reads from both mirrors in RAID1. If they did you would see read speed similar to RAID0.

4KB reads require 64KB read from disk if 64KB stripes/blocks are used which helps sequential but penalises random.

Some controllers cannot process commands and shift data faster enough to make use of the available HD resources. This can limit sequential and/or max IO/s.

RAID0 of two large capacity 7200rpm drives partially filled can perform better than a Raptor filled to the brim.

Raptor good for OS/pagefile/software.
7200rpm (with or without raid) good for data
January 10, 2006 12:52:30 AM

Quote:
This guy has 2 physical HDD's and a few partitions and 2 are in RAID 0 at the end. And it looks like he has 2 RAID 1s or something.

Besides, there must be some way to do it if Intel's MATRIX storage technology can do RAID 0 and RAID 1 on 2 physical drives.

hmmm, thoughts?


I guess you can use RAID0 on a partition, though I personally don't recommend it because it will not be as efficient. I am not sure of the details of how MATRIX stores RAID 1 and 0 on two physical drives, though it may involve software RAID on some level (not really true RAID). Doing RAID 0 and 1 on two drives strikes me as a bad idea. You are either sacrificing half of you disk size (in which case it is better to use four smaller disks in RAID 1+0), or you are not getting any redundancy.

Also, as seperate note, I generally don't recommend putting the OS on anything other than a RAID 1, RAID 1+0, or sometimes RAID 5 (though only in rare cases. D3ll does this all the time). If you are going to have seperate drives, I say get a Raptor for your OS, and RAID your other other drives as you see fit. The OS really benefits from the Raptors inproved seek time on multiple small file accesses. I have mine setup that way and i love it, though I don't have my storage drives RAIDed currently (used to be 0, I was willing to take the risk).
January 10, 2006 5:25:06 AM

Quote:
I guess you can use RAID0 on a partition, though I personally don't recommend it because it will not be as efficient. I am not sure of the details of how MATRIX stores RAID 1 and 0 on two physical drives, though it may involve software RAID on some level (not really true RAID).

I don't really see how it is inefficient to have RAID 0 on partitions. Granted, there may be some extra necessary logic to find the partition, etc, but no real killer downfall that I can think of. What do you mean? I must be missing something there.

I cannot easily find any technical details on how MATRIX works, but it would have to have a RAID controller. MATRIX motherboards just have a controller, just like an onboard RAID. Of course, there must be extra logic in the IC but thats hardware, measured in ns of delay.

Quote:
Doing RAID 0 and 1 on two drives strikes me as a bad idea. You are either sacrificing half of you disk size (in which case it is better to use four smaller disks in RAID 1+0), or you are not getting any redundancy.

MATRIX would give you RAID 0 and 1 on 2 HDD's. You would get performance and redundancy. I understand you'd lose some HDD space due to the RAID 1 partitions. I don't really understand what you mean by either this or that.[/quote]
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.h...
January 10, 2006 6:22:55 AM

I didn't mean that its inefficient for the RAID Partition, but for the non-raided partitions. When you try to access both partitions, you then essentially get the (write) overhead associtated with RAID 0 on both partitions, as opposed to two seperate drives.

From reading that article, MATRIX does not appear to actually give you performance and redundancy on the same data. It gives you the option of using 4 partitions on two drives as 4 physical drives in a sense. Two partitions would be RAID 0 for speed, and two would be RAID 1 for redundancy, however, to get the same data on both, you would have to copy it to both partitions. You still take a small hit as compared to using 4 drives. This solution is fine for home users, but in the business market (where I've done most of my RAID work), you would not want to use it. Also, it will not be as fast (I think), or as secure as RAID 1+0 (striping and mirroring).

Like you, I could not find any technical data on the inner workings of MATRIX, but it could possibly add the redundany by using two partitions as stripe sets, then using the other two as mirrors of the opposite disks, though it doesn't look like it does that.
January 10, 2006 6:10:58 PM

Quote:
I didn't mean that its inefficient for the RAID Partition, but for the non-raided partitions. When you try to access both partitions, you then essentially get the (write) overhead associtated with RAID 0 on both partitions, as opposed to two seperate drives.

Ah yes, I agree. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

From reading that article, MATRIX does not appear to actually give you performance and redundancy on the same data. It gives you the option of using 4 partitions on two drives as 4 physical drives in a sense. Two partitions would be RAID 0 for speed, and two would be RAID 1 for redundancy, however, to get the same data on both, you would have to copy it to both partitions. You still take a small hit as compared to using 4 drives. This solution is fine for home users, but in the business market (where I've done most of my RAID work), you would not want to use it. Also, it will not be as fast (I think), or as secure as RAID 1+0 (striping and mirroring).

Like you, I could not find any technical data on the inner workings of MATRIX, but it could possibly add the redundany by using two partitions as stripe sets, then using the other two as mirrors of the opposite disks, though it doesn't look like it does that.

Yes, MATRIX looks like it gives you performance for dataset A and mirroring for dataset B. Dataset A is supposedly where your applications would lie and dataset B is where your actual data would lie. So basically your OS, application installation datum, swap files, etc, would be on the RAID 0 parts of the drives, and your produced data would be on the mirrored parts of the drives. So its not like you're going to stripe data on RAID 0, then mirror it onto the RAID 1 partitions. You would only mirror or stripe it depending on what type of data it is. But I would guess you would have to set your "My Documents" and whatever other directories you want to save on the RAID 1 drives. I don't think it would be smart enough to know if it were app data or user data.
Yes, I agree that for server end users they would be much better off using a separate RAID controller. I'm primarily interested in MATRIX for my next computer, and having 4 HDD's would just be too much.
I think it would not be as fast as RAID 1+0 as well, but for home users it would be secure enough as long as they mirror the stuff they want to save.
It should be faster than a single drive though... (at least i hope!!!)

Quote:

Wrong, nowdays HDD can't even do a proper low-level format due to their high density. The only way to clear a HDD properly is to zero it.

I thought doing a low-level is zero'ing out every data sector on the HDD. I typically use the manufacturer's utility boot program to low-level stuff. Is that not the case?? If so, how would you zero out a HDD?[/quote]
January 10, 2006 7:22:15 PM

I'm new to Performance in HD's(used to have a 5400RPM 15GB til a few months ago...) but if you had the money would the very best be RAID 0+1?
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I hope to learn a lot from here... :D 
January 11, 2006 5:02:49 PM

My own 2 cents.

I'm going to agree with what is already widely known and say that 2 modern disk in a RAID 0 are going to outperform a single disk even given that the single disk spins at 10k in most applications. However, I want to also offer this.

I just built a new system and BattleField 2, FEAR, Quake 4...and all the other new games are dirt slow loading. I was previously running a RAID 0 with two 120G WesternDigital 8M, 1 G RDRAM 1066, 2.4G P4 and ATI 850-GT. My new system has 4 x 74G Raptors in a RAID 0 configuration using the integrated SilicanImage RAID controller on the ASUS A8N-Premium 939 board along with 2G's of DDR-433, X2-4400 and dual 7800 GT's. And you know what...it is a bit faster loading...but not that fast. I may have a bottle neck in my controller and I haven't looked that far into where my performance disappointments are lying. Bottom line is, I don't know what you need to get games loading fast, but so far I haven't seen much of an increase given a huge increase in my system spec. I will say though that once the games are loaded...I have zero issue playing them where as my old system was sucking big time.

I am looking to play around with my RAID and do some of my own benchmarks (stop watch loading of games) to see how much of an impact your HD configuration really plays.
January 11, 2006 6:22:31 PM

How much of a difference are you seeing though in the performance from running dual 15k SCSI vs the single 15k drive on the game loading?

My friend has a single 7200 rpm drive and there isn't a big difference in his load time compared to mine with 4 10ks in RAID 0...needless to say I'm scratching my head with a bit of disappointment. I haven't played around with the strip sizes either, as that is going to be dependent on how big the files are your loading of course. Currently I'm set to the largets which I think was 128.
!