Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

RAID 0,5, or 6 for gaming?

Tags:
  • NAS / RAID
  • Hard Drives
  • Gaming
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
March 3, 2006 11:57:09 AM

Ok, I understand that RAID 0 is the current way to go for fast loading times in games... but what about RAID 5 or 6? I currently have a DFI lan party mobo with an integrated RAID 5 controller, and I have no idea if it's worth hooking up. I guess my main question is this:

Is RAID 5 or 6 using 3 hard drives any faster than RAID 0 using 2 of those same hard drives? (read speed)

More about : raid gaming

March 3, 2006 12:27:21 PM

i use two raptors in raid O and i load almost first every time in BF2 sometimes i loads so fast that i can cap a flag before the next guy even gets to spawn :wink: i think a other point is sys mem 2 gigs so maps stay in mem, not sure but i noticed a great leap when i swaped it to 2gigs
March 3, 2006 1:46:22 PM

RAID5 or 6 provides you redundancy so that if a disk fails you don't lose all your data. The downside is that if you RAID5 3 disks you lose one disk as storage capacity and each write cycle has to write additional parity information.

Stick with RAID0 ....
Related resources
March 3, 2006 2:38:04 PM

RAID 5 can allow reads from all spindles simultaneously, so 3 spindles in RAID 5 will have better performance of two in RAID 0, as well as redundancy. This assumes high quality HW RAID implementation, SW or cheapo implementation won't get you the full performance gains.

During small random reads there is a chance that you will not get your performance increase, if you are reading random individual blocks you will read from all spindles -1, which would put you on par with RAID 0 with two drives. Generally you won't notice this condition, if block sizes are 64K the read from 2 spindles would be so fast you wouldn't notice the decrease in speed.

RAID 6 is just RAID 5 with extra parity, the theory being it can withstand multiple simultaneous failures. Can't do RAID 6 with 3 drives, and you obviously aren't too concerned with data integrity.

Depending on the brand and quality of your RAID controller, RAID 5 should be noticably faster than RAID 0. You also get redundancy, a HD failure won't phase you. But, cheap implementations might actually be slower due to added overhead, and you will have to buy an additional drive.
March 3, 2006 3:10:55 PM

Quote:
RAID 5 can allow reads from all spindles simultaneously, so 3 spindles in RAID 5 will have better performance of two in RAID 0, as well as redundancy. This assumes high quality HW RAID implementation, SW or cheapo implementation won't get you the full performance gains.

During small random reads there is a chance that you will not get your performance increase, if you are reading random individual blocks you will read from all spindles -1, which would put you on par with RAID 0 with two drives. Generally you won't notice this condition, if block sizes are 64K the read from 2 spindles would be so fast you wouldn't notice the decrease in speed.

RAID 6 is just RAID 5 with extra parity, the theory being it can withstand multiple simultaneous failures. Can't do RAID 6 with 3 drives, and you obviously aren't too concerned with data integrity.

Depending on the brand and quality of your RAID controller, RAID 5 should be noticably faster than RAID 0. You also get redundancy, a HD failure won't phase you. But, cheap implementations might actually be slower due to added overhead, and you will have to buy an additional drive.


Thank you, that is exactly the information I was looking for... It did, however, spawn 2 more questions in my mind:

1) How can I identify a good RAID 5 controller?
(Is the one on my DFI lanparty UT good enough?)

2) Can I get a performance bottleneck if I don't go with SATA2?
(or does each drive just use it's own bandwidth?)

Currently I'm using a single 74Gb Raptor, and from what I understand, in RAID 0 they can flood the SATA bandwidth on large data transfers.
March 7, 2006 9:44:47 PM

Ya
RAID 5 is a big investment.
$200 for the controller PLUS 3+ drives.

I will personally get ONE good Raptor drive for the OS, Games, etc.
Then add the RAID 5 for just storage.
If the Raptor crashes, just re-install everything from CDs since all the data is still safe in the RAID 5 array.
March 7, 2006 10:45:47 PM

No no no. You're so half-right that you're wrong.
Quote:
RAID 5 can allow reads from all spindles simultaneously


So does RAID 0.
Quote:
3 spindles in RAID 5 will have better performance of two in RAID 0


Not true. At most you get the same performance since only 2 spindles are used to hold data while the third holds a error-correcting check. You generally get slightly worse on reads because of the overhead of the calculations for the third drive. Writes to a RAID 5 are almost always slower since you have to generate the error-correction, so it depends on your controller. Add-in controllers are faster than built-in motherboard controllers.

Quote:
Depending on the brand and quality of your RAID controller, RAID 5 should be noticably faster than RAID 0

No it won't. If you have RAID 0 all drives are used for data so you get about the number of drives times the speed of a single drive; but for RAID 5 you get the number of drives minus one times the speed of a single drive, so reads are slower for the same number of drives. Also writes are significantly slower, depending on the controller because the controller has to create the extra drive's correction codes.

If gaming speed is your only concern, stick with RAID 0. However, multiple drives mean that one drive failure out of the set will cause the whole array to fail. For example, if you have a 1% chance of failure per drive, four drives in RAID 0 will give you 99%^4 chance of no failure = almost 4% chance of failure instead of 1%. However, with four drives in RAID 5 you need two drives to fail, meaning that your chance of failure means about 1/100 of 1% (= 0.0001) of simultaneous failure times 6 ways to fail means 99.99%^6 or about a .06% chance of loss of the whole array. .06% vs 4% means a factor of 67 difference in reliability in this case for RAID 5 vs RAID 0.

So I'd say, if you have only 2 drives in RAID 0, and you use the RAID only for non-critical data, your drive setup is probably okay. If you're using more drives, consider RAID 5. You won't get the maximum speed, but you won't lose everything to a single crashed hard drive.

--dv
March 7, 2006 10:54:05 PM

Quote:
1) How can I identify a good RAID 5 controller?
(Is the one on my DFI lanparty UT good enough?)


Look for reviews on the net. Tom's recently did a review. In general add-in cards are better than built-in motherboard controllers; Areca seems to be testing out to be the best. But the tend to be pricey, from $200 for a 4-drive board and on up from there. Areca's 4-drive controller is about $350 direct.

You on board controller is probably okay for RAID 0, but the onboard ones tend to lose out more for more complex forms of RAID (like 5).

Quote:
2) Can I get a performance bottleneck if I don't go with SATA2?
(or does each drive just use it's own bandwidth


Depends on the controller. PCI controllers are limited by bus bandwidth; to get the full benefit you really need PCI-X 64-bit connectors at 66 MHz for large arrays. PCI-e are better but require newer motherboards and are harder to find. On board controllers depend on how they transfer the data around, though I'm unsure what internal connections they use. SATA2 vs SATA shouldn't be a problem as long as the drives go through the controller; that's where the data rate will be limited. Single drives have a hard time flooding even a SATA1 bandwidth, but if that's all the controller uses for output, then maybe a RAID 0 array will flood the output.

--dv[/quote]
March 8, 2006 6:30:29 AM

Quote:
2) Can I get a performance bottleneck if I don't go with SATA2?
(or does each drive just use it's own bandwidth?)
So there are two answers to this, depending on what exactly you meant.

The first is no, not really, in practical sense anyway. Each SATA device is given a dedicated link, and so they aren't sharing the 1.5 Gbps. So, with current drives, the link will rarely be saturated for a significant period.

The other answer is, yes, the drives may saturate other buses as svyerkgeniiy indicated, but the situation is no different whether you're using SATA 1.5 Gbps or SATA 3.0 Gbps, since the bottleneck isn't between the controller and the disk. So really, no.

(edit: typo)
March 8, 2006 3:46:05 PM

Quote:
2) Can I get a performance bottleneck if I don't go with SATA2?
(or does each drive just use it's own bandwidth


Depends on the controller. PCI controllers are limited by bus bandwidth; to get the full benefit you really need PCI-X 64-bit connectors at 66 MHz for large arrays. PCI-e are better but require newer motherboards and are harder to find. On board controllers depend on how they transfer the data around, though I'm unsure what internal connections they use. SATA2 vs SATA shouldn't be a problem as long as the drives go through the controller; that's where the data rate will be limited. Single drives have a hard time flooding even a SATA1 bandwidth, but if that's all the controller uses for output, then maybe a RAID 0 array will flood the output.

--dv

Ok, let me try this I have a DFI Lanparty UT nF4 SLi-D mobo. It has integrated SATA and SATA2 controllers, as well as integrated RAID
0, 1, 0+1, and 5.

Now the main thing I'm looking for is read performance so I can eliminate long loading times. Like I said, this is going to be used mainly for gaming. I'm not too worried about HD failure (should I be, does it happen often enough?). So the questions I have now are:

1) Where is the first bottleneck to read time going to occur?
-SATA bandwidth? -the chipset? -RAID controller? (I have no idea)

2) Is there a RAID 4 or some other form of RAID that allows for redundancy and multiple spindle reads without any error check? (A gaming RAID, if you will)

3) How big of a difference will I see in the read speed of a software RAID 5 controller vs a hardware one?
March 8, 2006 5:08:12 PM

Quote:
1) Where is the first bottleneck to read time going to occur?
-SATA bandwidth? -the chipset? -RAID controller? (I have no idea)
The first and biggest bottleneck is from the physical medium to the electronic state.

Quote:
2) Is there a RAID 4 or some other form of RAID that allows for redundancy and multiple spindle reads without any error check? (A gaming RAID, if you will)
Every RAID mode does multiple spindle reads, and every RAID mode but RAID 1 stripes data in some fashion. Parity checks are generally done on writes, not reads. If you're not interested in redundancy go RAID 0. If you are interested in redundancy but you're worried about slow read performance because of the error checking, then it's something you need to worry about at the controller level and not at the RAID level (pun more or less intended). This isn't to say that different RAID levels don't have different read performances, just that from the theoretical properties of RAID, it's not the redundancy check that kills you on the read, regardless of the level.
March 9, 2006 8:03:08 AM

I think we are getting a bit too complicated here ! :wink:

RAID0 is for power gamers who want fast loading times
RAID1 is a waste for home users tbh. too much redundancy
RAID5 is too expensive for home use

RAID1 and RAID5 provide redundancy incase of disk failure. If you are that concerned about drive failure, buy a DVD/tape backup solution

nuff said

8)
May 15, 2009 9:53:17 PM

2 SSD's in raid0, untouchable!!!!!!!!
August 11, 2009 5:02:46 AM

svyerkgeniiy said:

Quote:
3 spindles in RAID 5 will have better performance of two in RAID 0


Not true. At most you get the same performance since only 2 spindles are used to hold data while the third holds a error-correcting check. You generally get slightly worse on reads because of the overhead of the calculations for the third drive. Writes to a RAID 5 are almost always slower since you have to generate the error-correction, so it depends on your controller. Add-in controllers are faster than built-in motherboard controllers.


The parity portions are spread out on the spindles evenly in a RAID 5 setup, so you do get the increased read speed from all the drives (theres not one "backup drive"). The parity portions are only used during writing or data recovery, so that shouldn't lower read speed. The redundancy will make you lose 1 disc in space though, and writing will almost certainly take longer.

August 26, 2009 12:53:41 PM

svyerkgeniiy said:
No no no. You're so half-right that you're wrong.
Quote:
RAID 5 can allow reads from all spindles simultaneously


So does RAID 0.
Quote:
3 spindles in RAID 5 will have better performance of two in RAID 0


Not true. At most you get the same performance since only 2 spindles are used to hold data while the third holds a error-correcting check. You generally get slightly worse on reads because of the overhead of the calculations for the third drive. Writes to a RAID 5 are almost always slower since you have to generate the error-correction, so it depends on your controller. Add-in controllers are faster than built-in motherboard controllers.

Quote:
Depending on the brand and quality of your RAID controller, RAID 5 should be noticably faster than RAID 0

No it won't. If you have RAID 0 all drives are used for data so you get about the number of drives times the speed of a single drive; but for RAID 5 you get the number of drives minus one times the speed of a single drive, so reads are slower for the same number of drives. Also writes are significantly slower, depending on the controller because the controller has to create the extra drive's correction codes.

If gaming speed is your only concern, stick with RAID 0. However, multiple drives mean that one drive failure out of the set will cause the whole array to fail. For example, if you have a 1% chance of failure per drive, four drives in RAID 0 will give you 99%^4 chance of no failure = almost 4% chance of failure instead of 1%. However, with four drives in RAID 5 you need two drives to fail, meaning that your chance of failure means about 1/100 of 1% (= 0.0001) of simultaneous failure times 6 ways to fail means 99.99%^6 or about a .06% chance of loss of the whole array. .06% vs 4% means a factor of 67 difference in reliability in this case for RAID 5 vs RAID 0.

So I'd say, if you have only 2 drives in RAID 0, and you use the RAID only for non-critical data, your drive setup is probably okay. If you're using more drives, consider RAID 5. You won't get the maximum speed, but you won't lose everything to a single crashed hard drive.

--dv

Good for you to correct the previous misconception. I knew it was wrong as soon as I read it. So you saved me the trouble of a response. You know the probability theory better than I do, however. I am planning to install three Hitachi 2 GB 7200 RPM hard drives in Raid 5 on my new system. I am going to use a SSD for the operating system and application programs. Maybe later on, when the price of SSDs come down, I will consider three SSDs in Raid 5. But only if the Trim function works in Raid configuration.
a c 415 G Storage
August 26, 2009 4:09:41 PM

shanghaied said:
Maybe later on, when the price of SSDs come down, I will consider three SSDs in Raid 5. But only if the Trim function works in Raid configuration.
The jury is, I think, still out on this one yet - but the general consensus seem to be that redundancy protection for SSDs is much less important than for hard disks. SSDs are not prone to data loss - their most common failure mode is the inability to write new data. Thus, the theory goes, it should be easy to recover the data off a "failed" SSD.

That having been said, for a high-uptime configuration failure to write data may be just as critical. And, I have to imagine that a failure to write data at the wrong time and place (during a file system metadata update) could render at least some data unreadable, or at least a lot harder to access without recovery tools.
August 27, 2009 4:08:33 AM

Now that I think about it, I believe I recall SSDs have some sort of built-in error correction already, so it would not make sense to put SSDs into a RAID 5 configuration.
August 27, 2009 4:17:22 AM

Actually, after reading additional material, I think RAID 10 is the way to go for both performance and redundacy, but a little expensive. Disk drives are pretty cheap these days. But most likely I will just install RAID 0 for my hard drives and perform backups on left-over external disk drives just like I do now.
a b 4 Gaming
a b G Storage
August 27, 2009 7:17:32 AM

Wow - thread necromancy alert...
October 8, 2009 4:32:51 AM

shanghaied said:
Good for you to correct the previous misconception. I knew it was wrong as soon as I read it. So you saved me the trouble of a response. You know the probability theory better than I do, however. I am planning to install three Hitachi 2 GB 7200 RPM hard drives in Raid 5 on my new system. I am going to use a SSD for the operating system and application programs. Maybe later on, when the price of SSDs come down, I will consider three SSDs in Raid 5. But only if the Trim function works in Raid configuration.


shanghaied said:
Good for you to correct the previous misconception. I knew it was wrong as soon as I read it. So you saved me the trouble of a response. You know the probability theory better than I do, however. I am planning to install three Hitachi 2 GB 7200 RPM hard drives in Raid 5 on my new system. I am going to use a SSD for the operating system and application programs. Maybe later on, when the price of SSDs come down, I will consider three SSDs in Raid 5. But only if the Trim function works in Raid configuration.



Yes, you are definately right about Raid 0 being faster (especially with write speeds), and also allows for more storage space. In other words:

Raid 0 speed = (speed of one drive) x (number of drives in array) [usually not quite this fast]
Raid 5 speed = a bit less than raid 0 on read (due to complexity); much slower on write (due to parity)

Raid 0 failure rate = (failure rate one drive) x (number of drives)
Raid 5 failure rate = approximately zero

In fact svyerkgeniiy was a little off in probablity of failure rates above, raid 5 is even more reliable than he states. In his example, if you were to have a 1% chance of failure per drive (assuming he means over an average lifespan of around 2 years), then for normal drives you have a 1% chance data loss. For raid 0 with 3 drives you have a 3% chance.

With raid 5, you have (3% chance for one drive to fail) x (chance that a second drive fails BEFORE YOU REPLACE THE FIRST DRIVE) which is a very low chance. So if you assume it takes you a day to replace the drive (or backup data), the raid 5 failure rate would be 3% x [2%/(365x2)] = 0.00008% chance of data loss. So raid 5 would actually be 36500 times more reliable than raid 0.

So my point is that raid 5 (or pretty much any redundant raid array) not only makes data loss unlikely, it makes it virtually impossible (this is only for data loss from hard disk failure however).

Overall, raid 0 with 3 drives is super fast yet somewhat risky, raid 5 with 3 disks is kinda fast but very reliable. I actually prefer raid 0, its worth the speed! (just backup your important files elsewhere)
May 12, 2010 8:58:30 PM

I'm necroing this thread since it's a high-ranking Google result and might mislead others researching RAID 5 vs. RAID 0 speeds for 3 or more drives.

AshcanPete said:
Raid 0 speed = (speed of one drive) x (number of drives in array) [usually not quite this fast]
Raid 5 speed = a bit less than raid 0 on read (due to complexity); much slower on write (due to parity)


This is close, but not completely true. Writing data on a RAID 5 is NOT "much slower" than RAID 0 if you take the RAID controller out of the equation. An integrated RAID controller (ie: Fake RAID or "HostRAID") that relies about the system's CPU for computations will have much slower writing than RAID 0. But a hardware-based RAID, such as a $200+ Areca, HighPoint, Adaptec, etc. card (look for cards with heatsinks on the RAID chip) will have have RAID 5 writes that approach RAID 0 write speeds. RAID 5 always takes more calculations, but for hardware-base RAID cards, this can be very close to RAID 0 speeds.

Most $200-something hardware-based RAID cards will take a minor write performance hit in RAID 5 when compared to RAID 0. Most $350+ hardware-based RAID cards with on-board cache (ie: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, etc.) will have near-RAID 0 write performance, if not identical performance. All of that is taking into account the subtracted parity drive which you sacrifice in the name of reliability if 1 drive fails.

Bottom line:

For built-in RAID controllers (ie: "fake RAID", ICH9, ICH10, etc., etc.), always run RAID 0 for performance, RAID 1 for redundancy, or RAID 01 or 10 for a mixture of both. Don't do RAID 5 (or even 3, 4, or 6) on built-in RAID controllers due to the severe performance hit.

For hardware-base RAID controllers try to do RAID 5 for 3 drives, RAID 5, 01, or 10 for 4+ drives. RAID 6 is fine for extra redundancy on uneven drive numbers of 6+, but I'd rather do RAID 5 for performance or RAID 01 or 10 for redundancy if you're doing 6+ drives.
August 5, 2010 12:23:40 AM

So I'm just setting up 4x 1.5tb Seagate 7200rpm drives in a Raid5(ICH10) array. From all the postings I have not found the answer to this: Will the Raid5 read and write speeds be slower then just using one drive in non-raid mode???
August 5, 2010 1:03:09 AM

Nudebie said:
So I'm just setting up 4x 1.5tb Seagate 7200rpm drives in a Raid5(ICH10) array. From all the postings I have not found the answer to this: Will the Raid5 read and write speeds be slower then just using one drive in non-raid mode???


RAID 5 on three drives with a built-in RAID controller on a motherboard will have significantly slower write speeds than just a single drive. Read speeds will most likely be significantly higher, to the tune of may be 1.5 times the speed of a single drive.

In all honestly, don't do RAID 5 on a built-in RAID controller (ICH10). If you have three 1.5 TB drives and want redundancy as well as performance, either buy one more and do a RAID 10 or choose RAID 0 or 1.

If you get a fourth drive, I'd personally put two into a RAID 0 for the operating system and applications, and a RAID 1 of the other two drives for your data and files where you want some redundancy. And if you want to squeeze a little more performance out of your RAID 0 of the two drives for your operating system, "short-stroke" them (make each 1/10 to 1/3 of the total size only). If you short-stroke two 1.5TB drives in RAID 0 (which would total 3GB) you can still get plenty of room for an O/S and applications with faster seek times.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,...

You don't need tools or firmware changes to short-stroke. You can always opt to use less space on each drive when setting up a RAID array or make a small partition since the faster parts of the drive (inside of the platters) is always used first.
August 5, 2010 2:11:49 AM

Okay, it's back to the drawing board then. This is now an official call for advice since this is my first raid attempt.

Objective: Primarily a DVR machine using AVerMedia's NV8416E4 camera capture cards recording 16-32 x 30 fps at 720X576 pixels plus playback without interupting recording. Plus one or two 360 megapixel ip cams. http://www.avermedia.com/AVerDiGi/Product/Detail.aspx?i...

Machine: Asus P6X58D-E, i7 960, Corsair DDR3-1333 12GB, Radeon HD 5770, 5x Barracuda 7200 32mb 1.5TB drives, and a LG Bluray writer.

Current configuration: One hd with a 350gb partition for os and the rest of that drive for general storage and the LG Bluray writer both plugged into the on board Marvell Sata 6Gb/s controller. The other 4 hds plugged into the on board ICH10R Southbridge ports and set in bios as raid. I need these exclusivly for the video record/playback.

I originally set the raid to 0 and waited all friggin night for Win7 Ultimate to create a simple disk. Then I started to worry about disk failure and down time. Can't afford the cameras down for long. I figured if I went raid5 it could still hobble along while rebuilding the new drive.

The video gets overwritten as the drives fill so losing the video is not as bad as a lengthy down time to rebuild. It sorta would be good to recover without down time. So what is the best raid for my purpose?
August 5, 2010 4:26:43 AM

Okay, decided to put the 4 drives in raid10 for video storage. Thanks.
September 7, 2010 11:17:24 AM

Hey Guys I have a RAID 5 with 9 1TB drives on a DUAL XEON (2.4 ghz server) This is using the Areca ARC-1231ML 12 port SATA RAID Controller w/1GB ram
One drive is a hot spare. So I have 7TB of space.

I am consistently getting 740 - 790 MB/sec for both reads and writes. I have to tell you since I set this up I have just never see this speed in my home environment.

Just saying the RAID card make all the difference.

If I am RARing or unRARing large files files, this server, because of the HD speed can kick the crap out of my I7 using standard 7200 drives, even reading form on and writing to another.

Plus all my 7TB of data is redundant and safe.


Just my 2 cents.

Kevin
September 7, 2010 1:08:34 PM

Quote:
Hey Guys I have a RAID 5 with 9 1TB drives on a DUAL XEON (2.4 ghz server) This is using the Areca ARC-1231ML 12 port SATA RAID Controller w/1GB ram
One drive is a hot spare. So I have 7TB of space.

I am consistently getting 740 - 790 MB/sec for both reads and writes. I have to tell you since I set this up I have just never see this speed in my home environment.

Just saying the RAID card make all the difference.


Indeed! Arcea cards are among the best RAID controllers. And your 1GB of RAM cache on that card helps quite a bit for RAID 5. :-)
October 3, 2010 2:27:09 AM

cipher_nemo said:
I'm necroing this thread since it's a high-ranking Google result and might mislead others researching RAID 5 vs. RAID 0 speeds for 3 or more drives.



This is close, but not completely true. Writing data on a RAID 5 is NOT "much slower" than RAID 0 if you take the RAID controller out of the equation. An integrated RAID controller (ie: Fake RAID or "HostRAID") that relies about the system's CPU for computations will have much slower writing than RAID 0. But a hardware-based RAID, such as a $200+ Areca, HighPoint, Adaptec, etc. card (look for cards with heatsinks on the RAID chip) will have have RAID 5 writes that approach RAID 0 write speeds. RAID 5 always takes more calculations, but for hardware-base RAID cards, this can be very close to RAID 0 speeds.

Most $200-something hardware-based RAID cards will take a minor write performance hit in RAID 5 when compared to RAID 0. Most $350+ hardware-based RAID cards with on-board cache (ie: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, etc.) will have near-RAID 0 write performance, if not identical performance. All of that is taking into account the subtracted parity drive which you sacrifice in the name of reliability if 1 drive fails.

Bottom line:

For built-in RAID controllers (ie: "fake RAID", ICH9, ICH10, etc., etc.), always run RAID 0 for performance, RAID 1 for redundancy, or RAID 01 or 10 for a mixture of both. Don't do RAID 5 (or even 3, 4, or 6) on built-in RAID controllers due to the severe performance hit.

For hardware-base RAID controllers try to do RAID 5 for 3 drives, RAID 5, 01, or 10 for 4+ drives. RAID 6 is fine for extra redundancy on uneven drive numbers of 6+, but I'd rather do RAID 5 for performance or RAID 01 or 10 for redundancy if you're doing 6+ drives.


What do you mean when you say "RAID 1 for redundancy" I'm new to all this and will be building my computer soon and I will be using 3 SATA 6.0Gb/s WD hard drives. The main use of the computer will be for gaming. The mobo SATA RAID is SATA 3Gb/s: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, & RAID 10 and SATA 6Gb/s: RAID 0, and RAID 1. I want speed, but also would like a fail safe.

TheApprentice
a b 4 Gaming
October 3, 2010 4:31:47 AM

There's no way for both speed AND fail safe. The only thing I can recommend is getting four of those WD drives you want. Put two in RAID 1 and two in RAID 0. Kind of just browsed through the forum convo so I don't exactly know all that's been discussed. But... RAID 1 with two drives will have the same space so if you had two 1tb, in raid 1 it'd just be 1gb. The RAID 1 just writes the data on both drives for extra fail safe. RAID 0 will have the drives split the data. So if you had two in RAID 0 the data would be split in half and the data size of two 1tb would double. So in essence you'd have 2tb of storage, and the data would be split between each drive so the speed is increased when reading and writing. But if one fails, you lose all the data.
October 3, 2010 6:14:19 AM

got to be a typo....... "RAID 1 with two drives will have the same space so if you had two 1tb, in raid 1 it'd just be 1gb. "...... I hope. 2-1tb in RAID 1 = 1tb of space. I got that. Put 2 in RAID 0....2-1tb in RAID 0 = 2tb of space. So does RAID 1 mirror the data that goes into RAID 0? What drive will the OS install on? Also the mobo that I have is set up as follows:
SATA 3Gb/s
8

SATA 6Gb/s
2 x SATA 6Gb/s

SATA RAID
SATA 3Gb/s: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, and RAID 10
SATA 6Gb/s: RAID 0, and RAID 1

So what is the best way to set them up. I have 3 1tb hard drives all 6.0Gbs/s and I guess I can get one more.

TheApprentice

Oh, thanks for your help too.
a b 4 Gaming
October 3, 2010 7:49:26 AM

If the drives are setup to run RAID 1, then both drivers will mirror the same file. Like if you installed TF2 on one drive, it'll install on the other, think of it as a back up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYBtmVMtH1g

Watch that video for more in depth RAID guide.
October 8, 2010 7:25:25 AM

Hey thanks for the link. After watching that I have a better understanding of RAID. Now I plan on using RAID 10. If I under stand this I will be able to use my on board RAID controller and I should get good speed with some security. I'm just going to have to buy that forth drive.
a b 4 Gaming
a b G Storage
October 8, 2010 12:59:28 PM

Redundancy has little to do with data protection. The "redundancy" of an array like RAID 5 or 10 means the server or PC does not go down or fail, it can remain operational with the failed drive, that is what redundancy is all about, not data protection. In servers where they run 24/7 for years at a time, this a critical point and redundancy is utmost important.

A mirrored disk is just that. Anything that happens to your data on 1 drive also happens on other drive. RAID only offers some small protection from a failed drive. But in the real world, and especially desktop users, losing data in a RAID array is hardly ever caused by a drive failure, it is usually the direct result of the user doing something that breaks the array, and not understanding what they have done, and they end up ruining the array for good.
RAID is not a backup. Anyone who has used RAID for any amount of time will tell you that no matter what the array is, you had better have a good backup if you have data on it you don't want to lose.
Anything wrong with running RAID on your gaming machine, not at all. I have used it in the past, although I found the benefits over a couple of single fast, modern well managed drive's and a decent amount of RAM to be minimal. Just be sure you use a good backup program, and save all stuff offline somewhere if it is of value.
October 16, 2011 9:19:44 AM

lostny11 said:
2 SSD's in raid0, untouchable!!!!!!!!


TRIM is not supported in RAID mode :( 
a b 4 Gaming
October 16, 2011 5:23:19 PM

Close this thread. It's been a year old.
November 13, 2011 3:21:44 PM

Aaaaaand it's still up XDDD
November 15, 2011 3:08:16 AM

dont for get jbod vs sofwere raid 0,1,and 5 for windows little slower but better for data recovery after crash ext.
a b 4 Gaming
November 15, 2011 3:17:15 AM

Please stop reviving the topic.
January 12, 2012 9:55:17 PM

Quote:
Please stop reviving the topic.
Why stop reviving a topic that is valid, even after so long?
There have been many advances in Hardware/Software since this thread started, yet all the "Correct Information" stated here is of use to readers today, from 2 Drive gamers(RAID0) and Family Photo/Video Archives(RAID5/1+0) to the newest Home Media/File/NAS Server HDD setups.

To those who have contributed Valid and Helpful Info, TYVM and Cheers!

Please, don't EVER close this thread, let it get updated as H/W and S/W evolve to keep up with the times.

Please remember, drives can fail. Always keep a Backup of your digital keepsakes, be it Invoices/Receipts, Tax Returns, Photo/Video, emails... if you can't do without it, "back it up!" All good backup software, including the bare essentials Windows Backup, will Image your System drive, as well as Backup any additional data you tell it to.
I use EaseUS Todo Backup Free and have an image of my OS and Game/Data Drive.
Full backup/Image once a month.
Differential once a week.
Incremental once a day at log-off.
I keep two months of backups.
Sounds like a lot? Not really.
I have 3x 1TB HDD's in RAID0 and a 1.5 TB HDD dedicated to Backups.
On the RIAD0, I have 2 partitions: OS (C:\) and Gamez (D:\).
The OS Partition is 250GB of which 20% is used.
The Gamez is 500GB of which 30% is used.
The leftover space (~1TB Unallocated) is for future use/expansion.
My 1.5 TB Backups Drive is 10% full after 5 Months of regular scheduled backups.

Referring to my previous statement, Drives fail, and this backups drive is just as susceptible. However, as a backup drive, it gets used so infrequently compared to the RAID that I worry significantly less about loosing the info on my Backup drive AND my system (RAID0) at the same time. If I do, it will likely be due to Fire/Flood/Act of Nature. How do you avoid that? A "Crap Ton" of Backups of my Backups on either DVD/BluRay, NAS, or "Online Storage" often called "Cloud Storage".

However you do it. Be safe. Unless your a RAID0 Gamer, Be Dangerous, but keep a separate drive/location for backups.
February 3, 2012 12:32:45 AM

The reason this thread needs to be closed is it is FULL of inaccurate information, such as people saying that 2 drives in a raid mirror are the same speed as a single drive. Half of the people in this thread don't even know which is which between a "RAID 0" and a "RAID 1".

The only reason why it would be necessary to do a RAID 0 is if you're really hurting for hard drive space THAT much and don't care about the data integrity at all.

Game smart ... Game on a mirror, it will save you headaches later and be just as fast as a striped raid.
a b 4 Gaming
February 3, 2012 3:12:58 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!