Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I think data security is overdone and overrated lately.

Last response: in Storage
Share
March 4, 2006 2:02:34 AM

I have to post this because I here it all the time, but only on this forum. People always wondering whether they should get RAID 1 or RAID 0. Personally i think RAID itself is overrated and kind of like SLI in the bag for buck catagory. People are always worried about their hard drive failing and losing all their data. I've never had a hd failure and neither have any of my friends, and am starting to think that if you spend a little more on a good quality hd like a western digital or seagate, you shouldn't be panicing over losing all your files. The funny thing is that people think RAID 1 speeds up performance, when in reality, unless its hardware RAID 1, it slows performance, and RAID 0 is thought to double load time, which i have heard in reality is not completely true, beacuse even though bandwidth is doubled, in reality,its not close to double the speed. ALSO, i don't get the big deal about hard drive speed unlees your always moving and using HUGE files, otherwise all you get is a fast boot up, and faster loading at the beginning of a game, which I personally would not pay much more money for, especially double for RAID 1, 0, 1+0, 0+1, or with RAID 5 triple the price and perhaps no increase in capacity or performance. I think there is a sort of hype around data security persuading people to buy more drives, what do you think.
March 4, 2006 2:29:33 AM

There's quite a bit of reasoning and valuability in RAID. RAID is best in "Mission Critical" servers, where those disks are being read and written to damn near 24/7, and the ability for a 16 Disk RAID Array and having 1 disk fail is not all too unusual. Yea, I agree that there is about a .01% chance of your HDD dying on you, but I also know that RAID increases performance.

RAID 1 does not increase performance on anything, and it decreases performance on Writing because it has to write the data to a 2nd drive as well. RAID 0 will offer up to 95% performance increase going from 1 drive to 2. Such as the case with the Western Digital Raptors. 1 74GB Raptor gets 69MB/s Drive Index, 2 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 get 137MB/s Drive Index, that's about 97% increase. In higher RAID's, such as 4-Disk RAID 0 Arrays, I have seen less increase in some drives and more in others. Such as 4 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 get 201MB/s Drive Index, that's only 70% faster than 2. Comparing that to 4 200GB SATA Drives in RAID 0, it gets 203MB/s, where each of those drives gets 55MB/s Drive Index and in RAID 0, 2 of them get 103MB/s.

Software and Hardware RAID's are whole other stories. Software RAID's take part of the CPU as overhead to maintain the RAID, but in addition to that, IIRC, you cannot port 1 Software RAID from 1 OS to another, and also the obvious of the inability to install an OS on a Software RAID. Getting to larger arrays, a 6-Drive RAID 5 Software, the biggest RAID I've done, was done with 2 200GB and 4 250GB (all partitioned to 186GB which is the formatted capacity of the 200GB's). I saw only 105MB/s Drive Index on this, and this was in a Dual AMD Opteron system so CPU was not an issue. That also brings up my next point, mixing interfaces. That was a mix of 2 SATA 200GB and 4 250GB IDE/133, this defaulted the 200GB's to ATA/133, which is obvious.

I know for a fact RAID's increase performance, not just margionally, but up to 1.9x the performance (same with SLI). RAID is worth it if you have the cash, but if you're going for RAW power, I would shun against anything larger than 4-Disk RAID 0 Array in a desktop computer, after that, it becomes pointless for desktop computers.

Final Thought On Topic: I do not believe RAID to be overrated, but it is not a necessity for normal users.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 4, 2006 2:37:04 AM

lol. ur a trip.

1st off, RAID isn't for everyone. I think the majority of folks in here would agree.

2nd, I've had 3 hard drives fail on me in 5 years. 1 of which had the birth of my child on it! So, RAID 1 would have definitely helped if I had it. Of course, backing it up would have too. ;-)

3rd, RAID 0 doesn't double performance by any means- I've never seen anyone make that claim. However, the majority of benchmarks that deal w/ RAID 0 are theoretical and only measure disk subsystem bandwidth and access times. Few benchmarks (if any) actually measure things like disk intensive multitasking. I'm one of those few idiots who tries to do everything at once because I'm extremely impatient. For example, at any given moment I'll have 3 disk intensive things going on:

1. Bit Torrent. because of my ridiculous bandwidth, I'm often downloading... umm... stuff from bit torrent at 800KB/s
2. Video. I'm usually watching... umm... stuff while I'm downloading umm... other stuff from bit torrent
3. WinRAR. I'm also occasionally unRARing... ummm... stuff while watching stuff and while downloading stuff from bit torrent.

Those are 3 extremely disk intesive tasks. Try doing those 3 things on a Non-RAID 0 array. Chances are whatever you're watching will dip to unwatchable frame rates. (again, you could just pause it... but i'm an impatient idiot) Show me a benchmark that can gauge performance while doing all that. There is none. So in my specific case, RAID 0 with dual 10,000 RPM's Raptors simply works. I don't care what anyone says... I've had 10,000 RPM drives on their own (non-raid)... RAID 0 works if you're doing the right things.

Like I said earlier, RAID isn't for the average user. But then again, how many people in here would you call "average users"? Very few.

RAID 1 is great IMO. It's almost no hassle. A disk fails- literally nothing happens. Windows keeps running, all ur documents are there, etc. All you gotta do is eventually shut off the system, remove it, plug in a new one, and tell the RAID utility to mirror it.

Tape backup is easy enough to use, but it's a hassle. You gotta continually keep up with it and when a disk fails you spend quite a bit of time restoring the image. Then there's the issue of finding tape backup drives at an affordable price that can store 160GB of data. Have you seen what a SDLT IV drive costs these days? It's waaaaaaaaaay more than any RAID 1 array.

My opinion is, if you've got the money, why not? It's clearly a better solution to tape back up.

Just my opinion on the matter. ;-)

-mpjesse
March 4, 2006 2:40:10 AM

Right on brotha
March 4, 2006 6:07:02 AM

I do think RAID is worth it in some cases. Coming from small business consulting, I would rarely build a server without at least RAID 1 (which will give you a small read increase in some cases).

I have also had disks fail on me in the past. Rarely have I had them die outright, but I have run into cluster and format errors and such that caused anything up to the whole disk to be lost. On the other hand, I did used to Run RAID 0 for awhile, and it was somewhat faster, though I prefer using two different disks now, one with regular callocation unit size, and one with larger allocation unit size for larger files.

Overall, I think RAID5 is pretty good, other than in certain database apps (For instance, progress/syteline doesn't work well with it). RAID 1+0 is the best in my opinion, and RAID 0+1 sucks.

However, for the home market, there is not as much need for it as there is in the business/workstation/server market. It does have its uses though.
March 4, 2006 5:03:05 PM

RAID arrays are certainly not overrated. However, it is also foolish to put all your trust in a RAID 1 array and expect yourself to be totally oblivious 100% to failure, as this is only going to happen just because you thought it wouldn't due to Murphy's Law.
RAID 0 is a fair booster in performance; although you won't see too many more "FPS" in a game or whatnot from an ultra fast hard drive (except during saves and going into new sections of the map), it boosts load time speed absolutely.
Another thing worth noting here is memory hard disks. Although they are a pain in the ass since they require 24/7 power, if they become easier to find, and if ECC ddr1 pc2100 gets cheap due to AM2 migration, it could certainly be a huge upgrade to put your operating system/data/game files onto that disk.
March 4, 2006 6:07:00 PM

Quote:
...People are always worried about their hard drive failing and losing all their data. I've never had a hd failure and neither have any of my friends, and am starting to think that if you spend a little more on a good quality hd like a western digital or seagate, you shouldn't be panicing over losing all your files...


Bull fuckin' sh!t! 8O 8O The past 3 harddrives I have owned have all FAILED! 8O Apparently, you have not owned a harddrive for a considerable amount of time, or you only use your computer to log into AOL and check your e-mail :roll: . Harddrive failures happen more often than you think.

The past 3 harddrives that I have owned were Maxtors. Within approximately 3-4 years, they have died. Perhaps this is just because the Maxtor brand sucks. That is quite possible. Whatever the deal is, I will no longer buy Maxtor brand harddrives. From now on, I'll probably go with Seagate or Western Digital...and even then I'll continue to back up my data.

P.S. If you're curious, out of the total harddrive failures I have had, I have lost over 280 GIGS of data (two 80 gig HD and one 200 gig HD... yes I know, 80 + 80 + 200 is 360, but they weren't 100% full). After you loose that much data, you'll never again trust a HD.
a c 383 G Storage
March 4, 2006 6:23:57 PM

Obviously, you don't work from home or use your computer for anything work related. I'm a programmer and at any given time I can have a minumum of six projects going on. I can tell you that losing a couple 100,000 lines of code is not cool. RAID 1 can be a life saver. That doesn't mean that some virus or malware can't get onto your box and destroy your data, which is why you also need reliable backups.

Now if all you're doing is gaming, you can have a new drive, OS, and games reinstalled in a matter of hours (less if you've imaged your drive), in which case you probably don't need RAID.
March 4, 2006 6:29:47 PM

Quote:
Obviously, you don't work from home or use your computer for anything work related. I'm a programmer and at any given time I can have a minumum of six projects going on. I can tell you that losing a couple 100,000 lines of code is not cool. RAID 1 can be a life saver. That doesn't mean that some virus or malware can't get onto your box and destroy your data, which is why you also need reliable backups.

Now if all you're doing is gaming, you can have a new drive, OS, and games reinstalled in a matter of hours (less if you've imaged your drive), in which case you probably don't need RAID.


EXACTLY!
March 4, 2006 6:41:54 PM

I love Raid.. It kills bugs dead!!!!



:oops:  . o O (Wrong raid?)
March 4, 2006 7:11:35 PM

lol ya the good raid with ddt. i run two rators just for games. if you look at all the things people do to get more speed etc. few give even a small gain in anything. if you have the 939 amd running and you go to the next 940 you might see a small gain in any apps but at a large cost. the gains in raid 0 is one of the few upgrades anyone can do that has that wow effect. yep if one dies you are down, but a game pc is not full of mission critical data, no shuttle crashes, or a loose ICBM gets by. most the people here are what we call in the hotrod clubs are a new type of GEAR HEADS. they overclock, raid drives etc. a need for speed so to say. back in my drag racing it was always said, " how fast you want to go is equal to how much money you have." nothing changed realy just the kids/people that dont like cars now compete in PC racing, who has best score i read it hear all the time.

what did raid 0(two raptors) do for me, loads windows after posting in less than 4 seconds this includes norton bloat wear. the same pc next to me, a ide WD 120 8mb takes over 25 seconds. what did Emeril the chef say, "BAM!"

im a older gamer, only play bf2. in the on line "pubs" you will see a HUGE advantage. why? you get in the sever first or at least with the other few that know in war games a lead is a advantage, if you are a pilot lets say in this game. you are off the deck and climbing into the sky before the others even have picked a weapon. you a ground pounder you are at the first flag and capping before they start to run. your caln can then spawn on you and put the main force on you. in pubs this is fun, in matches it dont work as they wait for all to load up before a restart.
March 4, 2006 7:26:50 PM

Quote:
...People are always worried about their hard drive failing and losing all their data. I've never had a hd failure and neither have any of my friends, and am starting to think that if you spend a little more on a good quality hd like a western digital or seagate, you shouldn't be panicing over losing all your files...


Bull fuckin' sh!t! 8O 8O The past 3 harddrives I have owned have all FAILED! 8O Apparently, you have not owned a harddrive for a considerable amount of time, or you only use your computer to log into AOL and check your e-mail :roll: . Harddrive failures happen more often than you think.

The past 3 harddrives that I have owned were Maxtors. Within approximately 3-4 years, they have died. Perhaps this is just because the Maxtor brand sucks. That is quite possible. Whatever the deal is, I will no longer buy Maxtor brand harddrives. From now on, I'll probably go with Seagate or Western Digital...and even then I'll continue to back up my data.

P.S. If you're curious, out of the total harddrive failures I have had, I have lost over 280 GIGS of data (two 80 gig HD and one 200 gig HD... yes I know, 80 + 80 + 200 is 360, but they weren't 100% full). After you loose that much data, you'll never again trust a HD.


OK, now that i got you all mad, i was talking about desktops at home. Hex, i HAVE had a hard drive for a long time, in fact this one on the comp i'm using has been going for 8 years, and used often. I go to school in the morning, come home turn it on, then its on till the next morning, cause i like to put music on overnight(don't ask). Its a seagate, i've never had problems with it. My friends also have seagates and wd, and they've never had hd failures. Now obviously, when its in a server and on all time there will be hd failures, but for normal people playing games, like the guy that was desperate to get RAID cause his old computer took 4 minutes to load, thought that without RAID 0 or 5 his new comp would take 4 minutes to load. Now if you just want faster load times and boot times, i think it is a waste to get 2, 3,4 drives, even if it loads twice as fast, especially raptors, since they are very expensive already. I wouldn't pay an extra 2 or 300 bucks for a 30 second faster boot time. But that's me. I guess i'm too patient.
March 4, 2006 7:33:09 PM

Well, if you r Mobo supports it already (and most new ones do), then you aren't really paying extra for increased load times. For instance, I, as a home power user/gamer, bought two 120GB Sata drives. I get 240 GB either way, Raid 0 or not. So if I don't care about my data (and I do), then I can do RAID0 for no extra cost. (At the time, it was cheaper to buy two smaller drives than one larger one).
March 4, 2006 7:57:43 PM

ok but would you pay for two identical drives in RAID 1, or for three drives in RAID 5, which i think needs seperate hardware but not sure. Are you that worried about security and a couple seconds faster loading times?
March 4, 2006 10:23:47 PM

Quote:
ok but would you pay for two identical drives in RAID 1, or for three drives in RAID 5, which i think needs seperate hardware but not sure. Are you that worried about security and a couple seconds faster loading times?

I would definately pay extra for a second hard drive in RAID 0. However, using RAID 1 as a storage device is rather silly and expensive as far as I see, unless you need to run it straight up and can't just drag the files onto masses of DVD's like I did.
March 4, 2006 10:31:26 PM

Here's an article about that wusy. Well part of it is about that.

Here's a
Quote:
In addition, reliability and durability of these drives depends much on their operating temperatures. According to our research, increasing HDD temperature by 5°C has the same effect on reliability as switching from 10% to 100% HDD workload! Each one-degree drop of HDD temperature is equivalent to a 10% increase of HDD service life.


...or read the article
a b G Storage
March 4, 2006 11:04:52 PM

I use raid0 with 2x80gb seagates cause at the time i couldnt afford a larger drive at first so i bought a smaller 80gb, then another 80gb later and got a cheap raid card just so it would be in 1x160gb, not cause of raid so much.

My server uses 2x250gb WD's (thats the last time i use WDs they rumble my silent server) in RAID1 cause then i dont have to backup data as much, but what everyone forgets bout raid1 is data is more likly to be killed/damaged from virus rather then hardware failure.

Intels matrix raid (similar to microsofts idea/design) is a good idea - 2 hdds can be made into a raid1 and raid0 patitions so if one hdd dies you will loose your raid0 aray and left with a working raid1 aray so you can balance hdd space loss and performance and what not.
March 4, 2006 11:05:57 PM

Quote:
There's quite a bit of reasoning and valuability in RAID. RAID is best in "Mission Critical" servers, where those disks are being read and written to damn near 24/7, and the ability for a 16 Disk RAID Array and having 1 disk fail is not all too unusual. Yea, I agree that there is about a .01% chance of your HDD dying on you, but I also know that RAID increases performance.

(snip of informed commentary)

I know for a fact RAID's increase performance, not just margionally, but up to 1.9x the performance (same with SLI). RAID is worth it if you have the cash, but if you're going for RAW power, I would shun against anything larger than 4-Disk RAID 0 Array in a desktop computer, after that, it becomes pointless for desktop computers.

Final Thought On Topic: I do not believe RAID to be overrated, but it is not a necessity for normal users.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


I appreciate your comments, Mike. I have not seen speed increases quite as high as you report, but I do not at all doubt that RAID0 is quite a bit faster than non-RAID. My current play rig (do some work on it nights and weekends) has the OS+Apps+Games on a 2-HD RAID0 running 74GB Raptors. The same box has a pair of 400GB WD RAID-ready drives in RAID1. I use this for digital photography and appreciate the near-instant backup. I've been doing digital photography and a variety of memory-intensive modeling studies for a long time and have had HDs die on me. It can be a real bummer to lose work product due to drive failure. Sure, you should back up regularly but what tends to happen is that when you're under a time crunch, one thing that slacks off is backups. I mean, with a customer or boss breathing down your neck for you to finish up, it's tough to say: "Gimme a few minutes, I need to stop working and do a backup". But I've been burned and have since learned. Now I do RAID1 as the quick backup, then do tape, DVD, server, removable drive, etc., when time allows. But the OS, apps and games can easilygo on a RAID0 - you've got the stuff on disc, right? If a drive lunches, just get a new drive and re-load. A drag but not the end of the world. And for me, it's worth it having the boot go faster, apps to load faster, etc. I hate waiting on loads. When I need to be frustrated by having to wait, I just get on the Internet and read some wacky forum (like this one).
March 4, 2006 11:45:48 PM

Quote:
ok but would you pay for two identical drives in RAID 1, or for three drives in RAID 5, which i think needs seperate hardware but not sure. Are you that worried about security and a couple seconds faster loading times?


No, Not at home. If I had a mobo that supported RAID5 (some do now), I amy go that route, but nothing I have at home is worth RAID 1, thats why I have a DVD-RW. In business, on the other hand, RAID 1 is the minimum in my opinion.
March 4, 2006 11:52:01 PM

Quote:
I amy go that route

So are you feminine or are you infering Corvette guy is really Corvette Gurl?!? :p  :p  :twisted: :p  :p 
March 5, 2006 1:40:07 AM

I've been preaching that in these forums for years. lol. no one listens to me.

A lot of ppl think that the higher the spindle speed and the higher the number of platters = higher chance of failure. Actually, the exact opposite is true. If ppl took the time to compare the MTBF between 7200rpm drives and 10,000 or 15,000 rpm drives they'd quickly discover that high RPM drives are actually more reliable. I think ppl think high RPM's fail more because they hear of 10,000 rpm and 15,000 rpm drives failing all the time- esp. in the enterprise arena. Indeed, we have at least 1 SCSI failure a month where I work. BUT, the drives are not adequately cooled. We also have over 60 drives. So 1 failure out of 60 each month actually ISN'T that high when you account for all the contributing factors to failure.

(to be fair, almost all RAID towers are poorly cooled... hard to dissapate heat when you have up to 27 drives stacked on top/next to each other and 2x120mm fans to cool them)

Heat kills hard drives. Period. Or manufacturing defects. But more likely heat...

;-)

-mpjesse
March 5, 2006 2:34:49 AM

Quote:
I've been preaching that in these forums for years. lol. no one listens to me.

A lot of ppl think that the higher the spindle speed and the higher the number of platters = higher chance of failure. Actually, the exact opposite is true. If ppl took the time to compare the MTBF between 7200rpm drives and 10,000 or 15,000 rpm drives they'd quickly discover that high RPM drives are actually more reliable. I think ppl think high RPM's fail more because they hear of 10,000 rpm and 15,000 rpm drives failing all the time- esp. in the enterprise arena. Indeed, we have at least 1 SCSI failure a month where I work. BUT, the drives are not adequately cooled. We also have over 60 drives. So 1 failure out of 60 each month actually ISN'T that high when you account for all the contributing factors to failure.

(to be fair, almost all RAID towers are poorly cooled... hard to dissapate heat when you have up to 27 drives stacked on top/next to each other and 2x120mm fans to cool them)

Heat kills hard drives. Period. Or manufacturing defects. But more likely heat...

;-)

-mpjesse


I can attest to your heat statement. I had a 250GB drive in an External Enclosure that was running 24/7 Downloading BitTorrent from the internet. It wasn't extreme bandwidth, only 400-650KB/s, but the enclosure had no cooling on it. This thing lasted about 7 months, than it fried itself. I recorded the temps one time with my nifty laser temperature device, it read 140f.

EDIT: Funny heat story, I was at a LAN Party at a friend's place, and one of our pals brought over his Pentium M Laptop from Dell. This thing overheats like no other, so my friend Ben whipped out some containers of Frozen Fudge he got from his 2nd job, placed 4 under the laptop, and it allowed my friend to keep gaming lol.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 2:45:02 AM

yes i can understand RAID at the workplace with servers because there are many important files, however what i don't get is paying twice the price to gain a few seconds loading something like a game , or booting. The only home thing that makes sense to me, is to add capacity with RAID 0, since they only have 500gig drives, if you want more then you get say, 2 320gig hd, and that makes sense, but just for load times, it doesn't to me. I think RAID 1 at home is just dumb, butt i guess that's because i back everything up seperatly in a mini harddrive. To pay twice the price for no added capacity and decreased performance is just dumb in my eyes. :roll:
March 5, 2006 3:05:03 AM

Quote:
yes i can understand RAID at the workplace with servers because there are many important files, however what i don't get is paying twice the price to gain a few seconds loading something like a game , or booting. The only home thing that makes sense to me, is to add capacity with RAID 0, since they only have 500gig drives, if you want more then you get say, 2 320gig hd, and that makes sense, but just for load times, it doesn't to me. I think RAID 1 at home is just dumb, butt i guess that's because i back everything up seperatly in a mini harddrive. To pay twice the price for no added capacity and decreased performance is just dumb in my eyes. :roll:


That's why we each have our own eyes, brains and wallets. Dumb to you is bliss to me. Having been through years of the stress of backing up my stuff, his stuff, her stuff, often when short of time and in a stressful situation, for me to pop $200 to get an easy backup in real time is a bargain. I manage backups for people that won't do it regularly, but they do scream when they lose data. Similarly, popping $100 to get a little more speed is worth it. Maybe you blow big bucks on a car or something else that seems stupid to me? The great thing about freedom is that you can choose to do stupid stuff - and so can I.
March 5, 2006 3:25:58 AM

Quote:
The great thing about freedom is that you can choose to do stupid stuff - and so can I.


HELL YEAH!!

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 3:30:08 AM

Never heard of a harddrive failure? 8O Ever had a system running 24/7? I lose 1-2 drives per year on average. But then I have 8 hard drives running. 5 of them are running 24/7 in my server. A couple of years ago I lost 3 drives during the summer because it was too hot. That was a hard time... :cry: 
March 5, 2006 3:43:11 AM

Quote:
yes i can understand RAID at the workplace with servers because there are many important files, however what i don't get is paying twice the price to gain a few seconds loading something like a game , or booting. The only home thing that makes sense to me, is to add capacity with RAID 0, since they only have 500gig drives, if you want more then you get say, 2 320gig hd, and that makes sense, but just for load times, it doesn't to me. I think RAID 1 at home is just dumb, butt i guess that's because i back everything up seperatly in a mini harddrive. To pay twice the price for no added capacity and decreased performance is just dumb in my eyes. :roll:

Everything you load, from your OS to games (obviously) to the browser you use to the word template you use is on your hard drive, so everything does load faster. For those of us who are extremely impatient, this could be quite a boost although "a few seconds" may not seem like a lot. Also, if you low amounts of system RAM or if you use your pagefile a lot during gaming let's say, it will significantly boost performance performance because of the fact that the data will be transfered faster to and from the memory.
March 5, 2006 3:56:56 AM

Quote:
yes i can understand RAID at the workplace with servers because there are many important files, however what i don't get is paying twice the price to gain a few seconds loading something like a game , or booting. The only home thing that makes sense to me, is to add capacity with RAID 0, since they only have 500gig drives, if you want more then you get say, 2 320gig hd, and that makes sense, but just for load times, it doesn't to me. I think RAID 1 at home is just dumb, butt i guess that's because i back everything up seperatly in a mini harddrive. To pay twice the price for no added capacity and decreased performance is just dumb in my eyes. :roll:

Everything you load, from your OS to games (obviously) to the browser you use to the word template you use is on your hard drive, so everything does load faster. For those of us who are extremely impatient, this could be quite a boost although "a few seconds" may not seem like a lot. Also, if you low amounts of system RAM or if you use your pagefile a lot during gaming let's say, it will significantly boost performance performance because of the fact that the data will be transfered faster to and from the memory.

I don't think people realize this, but those "few seconds" here and there, add up to a few minutes and hours after extended use. Saving 3 seconds on loading and 4 seconds on UnRaRing for somebody like me who does those 2 things constantly, means I saved probably 20 minutes which I can use to watch pr0n...which BTW is made better with faster HDD's ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 4:05:37 AM

Quote:
yes i can understand RAID at the workplace with servers because there are many important files, however what i don't get is paying twice the price to gain a few seconds loading something like a game , or booting. The only home thing that makes sense to me, is to add capacity with RAID 0, since they only have 500gig drives, if you want more then you get say, 2 320gig hd, and that makes sense, but just for load times, it doesn't to me. I think RAID 1 at home is just dumb, butt i guess that's because i back everything up seperatly in a mini harddrive. To pay twice the price for no added capacity and decreased performance is just dumb in my eyes. :roll:

Everything you load, from your OS to games (obviously) to the browser you use to the word template you use is on your hard drive, so everything does load faster. For those of us who are extremely impatient, this could be quite a boost although "a few seconds" may not seem like a lot. Also, if you low amounts of system RAM or if you use your pagefile a lot during gaming let's say, it will significantly boost performance performance because of the fact that the data will be transfered faster to and from the memory.

I don't think people realize this, but those "few seconds" here and there, add up to a few minutes and hours after extended use. Saving 3 seconds on loading and 4 seconds on UnRaRing for somebody like me who does those 2 things constantly, means I saved probably 20 minutes which I can use to watch pr0n...which BTW is made better with faster HDD's ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I wouldn't necessarily say it will "add up" since that will require lots of use, but for professional applications and workstation/server use it is absolutely essential to have utmost power. Also, I think some work should be done to determine whether or not 2 slower drives in RAID 0 can outrun a high end drive, such as the 150 Raptor. It is already known that 2 older 74gb Raptors are faster (and cheaper) solution than a 150, so perhaps this could be true for a lot more devices possibly making RAID 0 a budget solution!
March 5, 2006 4:12:18 AM

Quote:
yes i can understand RAID at the workplace with servers because there are many important files, however what i don't get is paying twice the price to gain a few seconds loading something like a game , or booting. The only home thing that makes sense to me, is to add capacity with RAID 0, since they only have 500gig drives, if you want more then you get say, 2 320gig hd, and that makes sense, but just for load times, it doesn't to me. I think RAID 1 at home is just dumb, butt i guess that's because i back everything up seperatly in a mini harddrive. To pay twice the price for no added capacity and decreased performance is just dumb in my eyes. :roll:

Everything you load, from your OS to games (obviously) to the browser you use to the word template you use is on your hard drive, so everything does load faster. For those of us who are extremely impatient, this could be quite a boost although "a few seconds" may not seem like a lot. Also, if you low amounts of system RAM or if you use your pagefile a lot during gaming let's say, it will significantly boost performance performance because of the fact that the data will be transfered faster to and from the memory.

I don't think people realize this, but those "few seconds" here and there, add up to a few minutes and hours after extended use. Saving 3 seconds on loading and 4 seconds on UnRaRing for somebody like me who does those 2 things constantly, means I saved probably 20 minutes which I can use to watch pr0n...which BTW is made better with faster HDD's ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I wouldn't necessarily say it will "add up" since that will require lots of use, but for professional applications and workstation/server use it is absolutely essential to have utmost power. Also, I think some work should be done to determine whether or not 2 slower drives in RAID 0 can outrun a high end drive, such as the 150 Raptor. It is already known that 2 older 74gb Raptors are faster (and cheaper) solution than a 150, so perhaps this could be true for a lot more devices possibly making RAID 0 a budget solution!

Good question, I have your answer: Yes. I have tested 20 HDD's (8GB to 400GB and 4200RPM to 10,000RPM) in multiple RAID's and configurations. I have come to know that 2 slower drives (such as RAID 0 of 2 5400RPM) beat a faster drive (such as 1 7200RPM), and the like. RAID (as it was initially designed for) stood for Redundent Array of INEXPENSIVE Disks. Meaning it was designed to use small, cheap drives in huge arrays to acheive top performance at a low price. Slower RAID's will beat faster drives and be cheaper, that is correct.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 4:21:35 AM

How much does that performance benifit reach out though? Would 2 cheap 5400rpm drives beat a 10k rpm raptor? What about 4 cheap drives in RAID 0 versus 2 Raptors in the same array?
March 5, 2006 4:24:32 AM

Quote:
How much does that performance benifit reach out though? Would 2 cheap 5400rpm drives beat a 10k rpm raptor? What about 4 cheap drives in RAID 0 versus 2 Raptors in the same array?


The performance benefit is substantial, but only to a point. 2 5400RPM drives will give the Raptor a run for it's money, and I would certainly recommend 2 5400RPM's against 1 Raptor if that person wants Price over Upgradability. 2 Raptors get around 137MB/s Read/Write (In My Experience) and 4 5400RPM drives in RAID 0 would be pushin' it to get 100MB/s, and it depends on if those 5400RPM's have 2MB or 8MB of Cache.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 4:25:31 AM

Quote:
How much does that performance benifit reach out though? Would 2 cheap 5400rpm drives beat a 10k rpm raptor? What about 4 cheap drives in RAID 0 versus 2 Raptors in the same array?


I have not actually done the tests, but from what I have seen, the difference between a Raptor and a good 7200RPM RAID0 array is close enough to say no, two 5400RPM drives in RAID0 will not beat a Raptor.
March 5, 2006 4:27:55 AM

Quote:


I don't think people realize this, but those "few seconds" here and there, add up to a few minutes and hours after extended use. Saving 3 seconds on loading and 4 seconds on UnRaRing for somebody like me who does those 2 things constantly, means I saved probably 20 minutes which I can use to watch pr0n...which BTW is made better with faster HDD's ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


It does add up. Waaay back in the dark ages, I was part of an industrial imaging group that had about 50 people split across 4 major and a few minor global teams. This was back so far in time, we all shot film, fercrissakes! Anyway, management saw how high our film costs were and decided we were going digital. They bought us 640x480 frame grabbers to replace our 4x5" film. Now, realize that 640x480 is tiny in the current digital photography world and we weren't so dumb as to know that it sucked back then. So we revolted. And management got pissed and we all took a real hit come evaluation time.

A couple of years later, I found a board that would collect image data up to 4,000x4000 pixels at 16 bit (at least on paper). It actually could function pretty well at 2Kx2K, 12 bit. That was good enough but the problem is that the PCs we had were something like 150MHz piles of crap and they couldn't handle images that large. So I got a 75MHz Mac and used it a couple of years running Photoshop and NIH Image, then upgraded to a PowerTower Pro. Hot Dog! That sucker was 225MHz and the SCSI RAID worked really well. PCs at the time had a faster CPU speed on paper but the Mac trounced them in the imaging world. The rest of the team was still shooting film but I was in digital productivity mode. I could get reports out instantly and with Photoshop's gamma control, I could print perfect images in a flash.

Before long, the whole group was running Power Macs and our customers were tickled pink. But management was pissed. All the money they saved on film was spent on Macs, software and new high-res Fuji printers. 600dpi, yippee!!! To get back to the point Mike makes, I got loads of flack for spending $6K for the Power Mac. But it was fast for its era and it shaved anywhere from 15 to 45 seconds on save operations, etc. My productivity had to be documented in that job on a daily basis - samples analyzed, # of reports authored, even number of imaged passed on to customers. Compared to the 75MHz Mac, my productivity QUADRUPLED with the Power Mac! Remember, the best PCs at the time couldn't even deal with the image processing I was doing, even though NIH Image had native code.

So, yes indeed, those few seconds do add up, especially when you learn to go get a drink and pee at the right time. Does speed really matter with gaming? Lots of people believe it does. I do, even though I'm too fumbly to beat my 9 year old at anything other than racing cars. But we waste loads of computer speed in home aplications. And no surfing the web, hell no, that is a sure path to lost productivity and a seat next to the devil herself.
March 5, 2006 4:28:30 AM

again... talking about home computers, where they arn't running 24/7 and they may have 2-4 hd in a RAID array. I agree that its worth it to mirror files and have faster loads in a working situatuion, but not at home. Also some said about RAM, i think it was ak47, yes i know less RAm will mean more frequent trippes to the hd to get files, but you could fix that by getting 2 gigs of RAM instead of 2 hd's if that is your budget. Also, people think i think RAID is bad, i don't think i said that, but if i did, i meant it is not very cost effective for home use, especially gamers since they are the people the most enthusiatic about getting dual raptors in RAID 0. I just think that people deciding between RAID, and say a better video card should, almost always go with something else other than 2 hd's. I just think RAID should be last on the list of priorities in a gaming system. But like someone else said, it's their choice if they want it.
March 5, 2006 4:34:22 AM

Quote:
again... talking about home computers, where they arn't running 24/7 and they may have 2-4 hd in a RAID array. I agree that its worth it to mirror files and have faster loads in a working situatuion, but not at home. Also some said about RAM, i think it was ak47, yes i know less RAm will mean more frequent trippes to the hd to get files, but you could fix that by getting 2 gigs of RAM instead of 2 hd's if that is your budget. Also, people think i think RAID is bad, i don't think i said that, but if i did, i meant it is not very cost effective for home use, especially gamers since they are the people the most enthusiatic about getting dual raptors in RAID 0. I just think that people deciding between RAID, and say a better video card should, almost always go with something else other than 2 hd's. I just think RAID should be last on the list of priorities in a gaming system. But like someone else said, it's their choice if they want it.



Thing is, the line between work and home is fuzzy for some people, me included. There are times I just want to work from home to be around the family, especially like lately when our group has been working long hours 6 or 7 days a week. So I do work from home and I don't want to lug my work box home, so having the speed is worth it to me. Plus, you get used to speed at work then a slow box at home seems like a real dog. actually, my two 74GB raptors in RAID0 are faster than anything I've ever had at work. And that are OTAY!
March 5, 2006 4:35:53 AM

Quote:
How much does that performance benifit reach out though? Would 2 cheap 5400rpm drives beat a 10k rpm raptor? What about 4 cheap drives in RAID 0 versus 2 Raptors in the same array?


I have not actually done the tests, but from what I have seen, the difference between a Raptor and a good 7200RPM RAID0 array is close enough to say no, two 5400RPM drives in RAID0 will not beat a Raptor.

I have a few high quality 7200RPM drives that are only 12% slower than a 74GB Raptor, and they beat the Raptor by up to 65% in a RAID 0 (70MB/s vs. 118MB/s).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 4:43:18 AM

Quote:


I have a few high quality 7200RPM drives that are only 12% slower than a 74GB Raptor, and they beat the Raptor by up to 65% in a RAID 0 (70MB/s vs. 118MB/s).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Cool data. I'll add that to my arsenal of RAID justification info! I wonder how a 4 x 37GB RAID0 would perform... Local shop has a few 37s on a nice sale!
March 5, 2006 4:45:11 AM

Quote:
again... talking about home computers, where they arn't running 24/7 and they may have 2-4 hd in a RAID array. I agree that its worth it to mirror files and have faster loads in a working situatuion, but not at home. Also some said about RAM, i think it was ak47, yes i know less RAm will mean more frequent trippes to the hd to get files, but you could fix that by getting 2 gigs of RAM instead of 2 hd's if that is your budget. Also, people think i think RAID is bad, i don't think i said that, but if i did, i meant it is not very cost effective for home use, especially gamers since they are the people the most enthusiatic about getting dual raptors in RAID 0. I just think that people deciding between RAID, and say a better video card should, almost always go with something else other than 2 hd's. I just think RAID should be last on the list of priorities in a gaming system. But like someone else said, it's their choice if they want it.

Ahem, did you read my budget rant? We concluded it would be much more realistic (and cheaper) to get two cheap ass 7200rpm drives over a single Raptor (any version). Also, RAID0 has a serious path for upgrading; when I got my cheap little SATA2 80gb Hitachi I knew I was set for the future because supporting SATA2 meant I would have the necessary bandwidth to support 4 drives in RAID0 if I wanted. Also, being $50, two of them is a lot cheaper than an old Raptor74gb and offers twice as much storage.
Therefore, RAID0 is definately a path to go for performance versus price that is almost always overlooked. People making lists of parts might add a budget performance category, but you will almost never see a RAID0 array in anything but four Raptor 10k's for those who have bottomless wallets. I can't blame people for doing this in times like these, when so many scalable interfaces are complete failures in the price category. Look at SLI/Crossfire; you pay 2x as much for the cards but you get at best 33% more performance in anything but benchmarking (anything can win in benchmarking). Same goes for dual-core since nothing really supports it, and even then the benifit aren't as high as they should be.
March 5, 2006 4:46:14 AM

Quote:


I have a few high quality 7200RPM drives that are only 12% slower than a 74GB Raptor, and they beat the Raptor by up to 65% in a RAID 0 (70MB/s vs. 118MB/s).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Cool data. I'll add that to my arsenal of RAID justification info! I wonder how a 4 x 37GB RAID0 would perform... Local shop has a few 37s on a nice sale!

Are you speaking of the first Raptor?
March 5, 2006 4:48:05 AM

Quote:


I have a few high quality 7200RPM drives that are only 12% slower than a 74GB Raptor, and they beat the Raptor by up to 65% in a RAID 0 (70MB/s vs. 118MB/s).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Cool data. I'll add that to my arsenal of RAID justification info! I wonder how a 4 x 37GB RAID0 would perform... Local shop has a few 37s on a nice sale!

4 37GB Raptors in RAID 0 get about 150-165MB/s, 4 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 get 201MB/s.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 4:49:45 AM

Quote:


I have a few high quality 7200RPM drives that are only 12% slower than a 74GB Raptor, and they beat the Raptor by up to 65% in a RAID 0 (70MB/s vs. 118MB/s).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Cool data. I'll add that to my arsenal of RAID justification info! I wonder how a 4 x 37GB RAID0 would perform... Local shop has a few 37s on a nice sale!

4 37GB Raptors in RAID 0 get about 150-165MB/s, 4 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 get 201MB/s.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Somebody post results for 4 Raptor 150's RAID0...Considering it if I sell my family off to slavery =D
March 5, 2006 4:53:45 AM

Quote:


I have a few high quality 7200RPM drives that are only 12% slower than a 74GB Raptor, and they beat the Raptor by up to 65% in a RAID 0 (70MB/s vs. 118MB/s).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Cool data. I'll add that to my arsenal of RAID justification info! I wonder how a 4 x 37GB RAID0 would perform... Local shop has a few 37s on a nice sale!

4 37GB Raptors in RAID 0 get about 150-165MB/s, 4 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 get 201MB/s.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Somebody post results for 4 Raptor 150's RAID0...Considering it if I sell my family off to slavery =D

Judging to the best of my knowledge, I would have to put 4 150GB Raptors in a RAID 0 somewhere between 225MB/s to 265MB/s, absolutely no more than 300MB/s.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 5:17:56 AM

My thoughts are these:

I replaced my 240 GB RAID 0 array with a 36GB Raptor for my OSes and two single 120's for data for a few reasons.

1: You take a hit to write speed with RAID 0
2: Raptors are better ar file access speeds, especially multiple smaller files, such as for OSes
3: Lower chance of losing everything, since I have everything spreed out across several independant drives.

Do I think people should spend the money for RAID 0 Raptors in a home gaming machine?? No.
March 5, 2006 5:32:03 AM

Relying on hardware for protection from anything is setting yourself up for failure...with the exception of DVD's and CD's.
March 5, 2006 5:39:46 AM

Quote:
1: You take a hit to write speed with RAID 0
.....................................(Comments)......................
Do I think people should spend the money for RAID 0 Raptors in a home gaming machine?? No.


I have never taken a performance hit in a RAID 0, EVER. I would definately recommend RAID 0 in a Gaming Machine, maybe not necessarily Raptors, but any RAID 0 of 2 drives I recommend.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 5, 2006 6:10:09 AM

Quote:
1: You take a hit to write speed with RAID 0
.....................................(Comments)......................
Do I think people should spend the money for RAID 0 Raptors in a home gaming machine?? No.


I have never taken a performance hit in a RAID 0, EVER. I would definately recommend RAID 0 in a Gaming Machine, maybe not necessarily Raptors, but any RAID 0 of 2 drives I recommend.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

How much does hard drive even effect gaming, moving textures to and fro?
March 5, 2006 9:09:35 AM

Quote:
How much does hard drive even effect gaming, moving textures to and fro?
No, not really. Provided you have enough RAM not to be paging all the time, the primary effect of the HDD on gaming is load times.
a b G Storage
March 5, 2006 10:03:12 AM

yeah thats why we have video ram and buses that have direct access to system ram
!