Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAID 0 ....... is it worth it?

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 13, 2006 8:46:06 PM

Hey guys searched the forum but still could not get a def answer.


you can read my SIG for my specs... ok...


My WD SATA-2 160gb is plenty fast.. well I just bought another HD, same model and everything.

I want to set up a RAID 0 but will I notice a big differance in perforamnce over one single HD.

or is it in my best interest to just make it a 2nd HD for more space..

let me know! thanks!

More about : raid worth

June 13, 2006 11:27:10 PM

In my opinion the risks of losing all your data to a controller malfunciton and the difficulty of ever moving the array intact to another motherboard far outway any benifits.

Sure the transfer rate almost double's, but when you look at real world benchmarks the effects are by comparison underwhelming.


--

If that were my setup I would

A)

Use RAID 1 (each drive has a copy of your data and is readable by a non-raid controller so your data is extra safe), cuts capacity in half.

With a 30 GB C: OS Partition and a D: Partition for your desktop, my documents, email, personal files and downloads.

-or-

B) No RAID
1st Drive 30 GB OS partition rest D: personal documents as above
2nd Drive on large partition. Store downloads and backups here

---Explaination of above

You may want more or less than 30 GB for you installed programs depending on how many games/large apps you use.

Keeping the OS seperate aids in backups. That way you can backup just your OS and restore your OS without overwriting personal files.

I put C: and D: on the same drive because I move My Documents, My Desktop, Firefox/Thunderbird profiles to D: and this ensures that I never boot the system with D: absent.

Also on D: I make sure that all the important stuff that needs backuped up on a regular basis are inside the same root folder.

All non critical files can go anywhere other than C:

I recommend True Image 9 for OS backups and EMC Retrospect for files.

I would probably chose B over A because I usually need more storage.
Either A or B lets you automatically backup to a hard drive, and ensure's that you won't lose anything important if only one drive fails.


----Non RAID vs RAID 0 Benchmarks

Here is the article Anandtech did for the 750 GB Seagate. They run a lot of benchmarks on the drives alone and in RAID 0 and see what difference it makes for what uses.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2760&p=10

Thats the best link I have, if someone has a better single vs raid comparison please post it and I will add it to my bookmarks.

---People with other priorities will come to different conclusions.

You might what to repost this as a poll.

Some people want top performance no matter what the risks.

Some use their PC in a way where the huge increase in transfer rates really matter, making it well worth the risk.

A few may even consistently backup to DVD+RW making negating any risks.
[/quote]
June 13, 2006 11:53:11 PM

Quote:
Hey guys searched the forum but still could not get a def answer.


you can read my SIG for my specs... ok...


My WD SATA-2 160gb is plenty fast.. well I just bought another HD, same model and everything.

I want to set up a RAID 0 but will I notice a big differance in perforamnce over one single HD.

or is it in my best interest to just make it a 2nd HD for more space..

let me know! thanks!


You will notice difference if you play with big files. The system will feel faster, and will be in most case. If all you do is internet and office task, don't bother creating an array, you won't notice any speed difference.

I use RAID since 2001, and never had any problem. Just make sure HDD have enough clearance to avoid overheating, and you should be fine. As for the risk of loosing DATA, no matter the kind of drive, controller..blabla.. you should always have backup of your important file and not just rely on the HDD anyway.

If you have a backup of your important files, (no, Windows is not an important files.. just like all of your game that you have installation disk anyway.. or apps.) then just RAID both drive, make a 50 or more gigs of partiotion for the OS and install Windows. This will leave you with250 gigs of unpartitionned space for your storage pleasure.
Related resources
June 14, 2006 12:13:25 AM

Quote:
Hey guys searched the forum but still could not get a def answer.


you can read my SIG for my specs... ok...


My WD SATA-2 160gb is plenty fast.. well I just bought another HD, same model and everything.

I want to set up a RAID 0 but will I notice a big differance in perforamnce over one single HD.

or is it in my best interest to just make it a 2nd HD for more space..

let me know! thanks!


Hello

In my opinion, you should go with raid 0. You will see the performance difference especially loading your games or starting up windows and large files.

In term of data safety, you should always have a back up of important files. I have two hd in raid 0 setup and i am planning to add two more when my budget allows me.

In short, go with raid 0.

Bye.
June 14, 2006 12:15:51 AM

You sure won't loose any space by using raid 0, you'll have the same as if they were just 2 serparate drives.

I like the performance of RAID0 since I move a lot of large vid files and stuff. And if you get decent drives you have very little to worry about failures. I've had Raid0 systems in operation since 1998 and never had a single drive fail. Ironically some of my raid1 and raid5 systems have :) 
June 14, 2006 12:18:55 AM

I agree with Pat and htoon. You will see some increase in performance. How much exactly depends on what you do. Personally, after having use it in various systems for the past 9 years, I don't mess with it any more because I think the difference is really marginal. Windows boots a bit faster, not much, and the machine feels abit more responsive, though not much, and all in all I don't think it's worth the trouble for me.

However, just like said, 1 disk or 5 disk in a raid 6 array, you still need to backup your data, so not doing raid for the fear of losing data is the wrong idea.

I still use raid 5 in my servers, but I don't mess with strip sets in my workstations any more.
June 14, 2006 1:07:02 AM

Quote:
You sure won't loose any space by using raid 0, you'll have the same as if they were just 2 serparate drives.
Um i dont know what your talking about but if he using RAID 0 with two 160 GB drives he will ONLY have 160 GB of Storage he will not have 320
June 14, 2006 1:11:12 AM

Quote:
Um i dont know what your talking about but if he using RAID 0 with two 160 GB drives he will ONLY have 160 GB of Storage he will not have 320


Yes he will. You're thinking of RAID 1. Raid 0 is actually not redundant at all...it's AID. :D 
June 14, 2006 1:13:22 AM

Thank you Pain, don't know what it is with these n00bz these days....
June 14, 2006 1:27:57 AM

RAID 0 will, real world, get you maybe 3%, if that.

Given your data is twice as likely to be lost, not worth it.

Buy a Raptor and/or WD750 if you want and put all the OS stuff on that drive, same money, less risk....
June 14, 2006 1:30:26 AM

Same money? Raptors and 750's are still very expensive per gb, the wd 320's are probably the best price per gig.
a b G Storage
June 14, 2006 1:48:43 AM

RAID0 is a good way to go...You will get realize the full capacity of both drives (2x160GB) as well as faster access times...now, keep in mind it's not a tremendous increase, but it is a significant improvement...example: i have 2x80GB WD drives in RAID0 and the 1x200GB drive stand alone scratch drive, both are caviars with 8MB cache and same seek times...with HD Tach, the 200GB scores 84MB/s whereas the 2x80GB RAID0 scores a 95MB/s...I do not notice a difference with small files, but large files, games, and windows load much faster than a single drive...

Keep in mind if one drive fails, then everything will be lost...I say go with the RAID0 for your OS and programs then snag a 320GB for scratch and saving important stuff to...and of course, don't forget to ghost an image or make a backup every now and then.

Good luck!
June 14, 2006 5:56:52 PM

Well if even RAID5 is not meant for data safe storage, can someone tell me how professional storage company (Yahoo , hotmail for example) do their business
June 14, 2006 6:20:38 PM

With RAID5 and/or RAID6 and lots of near-line and off-line backup systems.

For very good reliability I would recommend a RAID51 system. 2 RAID5's that are mirrored. Or a dual RAID1 where you mirror a mirrored array. Or if you really want to get serious, try a RAID61, you could have upto 4 hd's fail over the two RAID6's or an entire RAID6 and still have all your data.

When you consider a RAID5 in an enterprise situation, the sys admin will always (if he's smart) have a spare drive or two laying around for each array. That way if your hot spare (if you use them) recovers a failed hd you just slide the new one in, and viola another hot spare.

Data redundancy is like uh, something (brain freeze), you can always get more paranoid and throw in more safe guards, question is, how much are you willing to pay/give up for that security. RAID is very scalable and now that RAID6 is really coming to market there are no ends to the possibilities.
June 14, 2006 6:40:38 PM

Since we're off on a tangent, I may as well continue :wink: At my office I have a RAID5 server, with a RAID5 backup server, both domain controllers. If I have a disk failure, I can swap a disk and be back up. If I have a server hardware crash on the main login server [where all the scripts are kept] then I can rewrite the login scripts on the backup server and remap all the network drives to my backup server and everyone can log back on in minutes. The backup server has a mirrored copy of the data.

I have a backup tape run each night, and backup tapes of course go home with me each night because all the kings RAID-5's and all the kings RAID-6's won't let you recover if your building burns down.

There are many other ways to do it, and much more expensive solutions. I run a fairly small office, so a lot of my method is rather brute force over finesse, but I have a limited budget.
June 14, 2006 6:46:56 PM

Well if I am going to do a RAID 0 i will have 2x160 SATA II drives...

that will give me 320gb of space and increased performance....


I could load my OS and system files on my RAID 0 Configuration.. and then buy a Raptor 74 for $140 ish. but then I might as have kept my 160gb drive and bought a 150 Raptor drive for $300+


I am going to go with RAID 0 and see what happens... as for errors... I back up only my music and pictures.. all the other stuff on my computer is not really that important to me. Games.. i can install again, programs.. i can install again... finance stuff.. i always back up.

they both have 3 year warrentys so its all good. Thanks guys.

ya'll have a website that compares SATA II to SATA II w/ Raid 0?

thanks

~donKay
June 14, 2006 6:57:07 PM

Now.. which raid controller should I use... the nForce4 SLi with nV RAID


or Silicon Image Sil3132
June 14, 2006 7:00:29 PM

That's easy, nvraid.
a b G Storage
June 14, 2006 7:12:36 PM

Essentially, I agree with everything Codesmith said. The risk of data loss outweighs the speed benefits in almost every case. If you're doing serious, professional video editing or other work on huge files, such that the speed would matter, then buy another pair of drives and do RAID0+1, or do RAID5 with a spare. Make sure your PSU can handle the number of drives you have, plus at least one additional fan in the front of your case to cool them off.
June 14, 2006 7:24:15 PM

I have to disagree a little bit, if you play games or use a lot of video, raid 0 is a perfectly acceptable setup, they are pretty darn reliable, like I've said before I've had more hd failures in Raid 5's and 1's than 0's, just luck of the draw really. And the average user on this forum won't be put off to much to just reinstall his os and apps if it does crash. I don't recommend more than 2 drives per array if you have anything remotely important, your save games may fall under this :D  as you exponentially (not quite) increase your chance of failure.

Now if all you do is office and accounting type of stuff, setup a raid1, I know way more office's that don't backup than individual users!

edit: Saying never use RAID0 is akin to saying don't go outside when it's raining, you might slip, hit your head on a fire hydrent, pass out, fall into the gutter and get run over by a street sweeper and die.
June 14, 2006 7:38:29 PM

Quote:
Well if I am going to do a RAID 0 i will have 2x160 SATA II drives...

that will give me 320gb of space and increased performance....


I could load my OS and system files on my RAID 0 Configuration.. and then buy a Raptor 74 for $140 ish. but then I might as have kept my 160gb drive and bought a 150 Raptor drive for $300+


I am going to go with RAID 0 and see what happens... as for errors... I back up only my music and pictures.. all the other stuff on my computer is not really that important to me. Games.. i can install again, programs.. i can install again... finance stuff.. i always back up.

they both have 3 year warrentys so its all good. Thanks guys.

ya'll have a website that compares SATA II to SATA II w/ Raid 0?

thanks

~donKay


Hello

Can you give me your 3d mark05 cpu score. i have a faster cpu but i do not receive the score you are having. I do not have sli setup,however . i believe your sli setup give your score a boost. so i want to know the scores of your cpu. If possible , please share them with me.

Bye.
June 14, 2006 8:07:52 PM

RAID 0
+ You will see the most difference when used in a server.
+ Can feel a bit faster.
+ Perfectly fine if you backup you data.

- Louder when running 2 HDD's or more.
- When ONLY 1 HDD crashes everything goes by by
- Performance difference may not be worth it if sound is a concern.
- HDD's (at least my Western Digital's don't) may or may not spin down.

That's my take after 2 years or so of RAID 0. I'm now going for the quiet approach.
June 14, 2006 8:28:49 PM

Quote:
RAID 0 ....... is it worth it?

No.
June 14, 2006 8:49:51 PM

Wow there's a lot of bad info here! 8O 8O 8O

First of all, The real-world difference between RAID 0 and a single drive is very noticible. One of the worst bottlenecks that will make your computer slow is the hard drive. I've been using RAID since the first E-IDE RAID controllers.

RAID 0 generally offers a solid 66%-80% increase in file transfer speed. It's especially noticible when you're (1) loading windows, (2) loading large files (photoshop, downloading from the internet (P2P!!)), booting up large games (BF2, Civ4). You WILL see a difference and any computer you sit on without RAID 0 you'll notice. You'll also see a HUGE increase in speed if you ever find yourself swapping memory (i.e. Windows is using more memory than you have RAM).

With RAID 0 you will lose all of your data if even one drive fails, so always have a spare "storage" drive. I use an old computer on a network for my file server. There's not a lot of risk of a RAID setup failing on a home computer unless you buy a cheap Maxtor.

RAID 5 is really only good on home setups if you need to span your space over multiple drives, and you want fault tolerance. It's pretty slow compared to RAID 0, and I'd even recommend RAID 1/0 (a.k.a. 10, 1+0) over RAID 5 as a primary computer drive.

As a rule of thumb, with regards to home computers, RAID 5 is good for archive only, and provides no real performance gain. If you use RAID 5 as your primary drive, you'll even see decreased performance. This is because low-end software lacks a dedicated (or decent) XOR engine for parity calculations, and lacks a sizable/speedy buffer to make use of data striping.

RAID 5 and RAID 10 are generally what enterprise solutions are built on (RAID 6 is RAID 5 with an extra parity drive). RAID 10 is used when there are more writes than reads, and RAID 5 is used when there are more reads than writes, or when large storage arrays are required.


So to answer your question, ALWAYS go RAID 0 if you can, even if you're RAIDing two 40GB HDD. Just make sure you have a backup drive of some sort for any valuable data. You WILL see a performance boost. Don't consider RAID 5 for anything other than archiving unless you plan on buying a $400+ controller. I've seen some negative stuff anout nForce's RAID controller, so if you're going nForce, I'd recommend a PCIe RAID controller if your mobo doesn't use a Silicon Image chip or something (it's another RAID controller). Intel's Matrix RAID is really reliable at this point (on most MOBOs with Intel chipsets) with good performance.

I hope I've helped.
June 14, 2006 9:01:15 PM

Can't say I've noticed that much difference... don't know why you do and I don't. The only true difference I noticed is when it crashed. Windows loads the same, btw. You might see a difference in game loading but no 66% that's for sure.

RAID benchmark

Normally ~2 seconds in loading on Raptors in RAID over non-RAID. Wow that's a lot of extra sitting there time. QUOTE "As to how Raid-0 stacks up against a single Raptor, the only difference is in the benchmark scores - other then that, in real world use there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in load up times."
June 14, 2006 9:02:09 PM

Quote:

Hello

Can you give me your 3d mark05 cpu score. i have a faster cpu but i do not receive the score you are having. I do not have sli setup,however . i believe your sli setup give your score a boost. so i want to know the scores of your cpu. If possible , please share them with me.

Bye.


RAID shouldn't affect 3dmark scores unless you don't have enough RAM to run the benches.

You'll see the demos load faster, but the scores won't change. The benches should be fully loaded into memory before the benchmarks run.
June 14, 2006 9:03:15 PM

Well you guys have more than answered my question. The hard drive will be here tomorrow and I will RAID 0 both of the drives on a Windows XP Pro Sp2 OS.. and soon Linux ... thanks guys!
June 14, 2006 9:06:02 PM

Quote:
Well you guys have more than answered my question. The hard drive will be here tomorrow and I will RAID 0 both of the drives on a Windows XP Pro Sp2 OS.. and soon Linux ... thanks guys!


NOTE: Most RAID hardware requires both drives to be the same Brand / Model. Software RAID 0 probably won't increase your speed.

Also note that when you create the RAID array, you will lose all of the data that's already on the drives, so make sure you have everything backed up.

Good luck!

:) 
June 14, 2006 9:22:00 PM

Quote:
Can't say I've noticed that much difference... don't know why you do and I don't. The only true difference I noticed is when it crashed. Windows loads the same, btw. You might see a difference in game loading but no 66% that's for sure.

RAID benchmark

Normally ~2 seconds in loading on Raptors in RAID over non-RAID. Wow that's a lot of extra sitting there time. QUOTE "As to how Raid-0 stacks up against a single Raptor, the only difference is in the benchmark scores - other then that, in real world use there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in load up times."


I hear ya. What controller/drives are you using? What stripe size are you using?

Content Creation (i.e. Browsing the web) is an area where you'll also see improvement. No matter how fast your internet connection is, you have to save it to the drive before you can see it.

Also, you're going RAID 0 versus a raptor. Raptors offer blazing speeds. Still, though, in day-to-day use, I've found computers with RAID 0 to be much more responsive, especially when multi-tasking.
June 14, 2006 9:22:56 PM

Quote:

Hello

Can you give me your 3d mark05 cpu score. i have a faster cpu but i do not receive the score you are having. I do not have sli setup,however . i believe your sli setup give your score a boost. so i want to know the scores of your cpu. If possible , please share them with me.

Bye.


RAID shouldn't affect 3dmark scores unless you don't have enough RAM to run the benches.

You'll see the demos load faster, but the scores won't change. The benches should be fully loaded into memory before the benchmarks run.

that is not what i am asking. i am asking his cpu scores.
June 14, 2006 9:38:17 PM

Very right on!

I have a highpoint 2320 (I'm sure you regulars are getting sick of hearing about it) with 4 320's and it's got comparable rights compared to my RAID0, a bit slower, the reads are certainly faster than a single disk but nowhere near the RAID0's.
June 14, 2006 10:24:24 PM

well you must have something slowing your start up times to make two raptors in raid0 not feel like we are comparing a UGO and a LS7 corvet.

we have 4 Northys running here all the same set up about i say about because they are all OCed. that a side . this pc a 2.4 @ 3.2 2raptors loads windows after post in under 4 seconds 8O the pc next to it same mobo same 2.4@ 3.2 but witha single wd 120gig that pc takes over 17 seconds. both pcs have 2 gigs ram.

next advantage if you are a gamer loading maps. BF2 or Oblvion you will see why a LS7 vet is not a UGO.

as for reliabilty, yea there is a 2x chance of data lose over a single drive. Not that much since MOST data is not lost do to a hard drive failing more likly a person to curupt windows get a virus etc..... how many have had to reformat ? did you replace your Hd? no

for me one of the best up grades i ever did
June 15, 2006 5:16:01 AM

Quote:
this pc a 2.4 @ 3.2 2raptors loads windows after post in under 4 seconds 8O


Keep in mind that when you see the blue bar for windows, it's initializing the HAL. i.e. The drivers determine how fast it loads during the splash screen. A fresh install with no drivers will usually only flash the splash screen for a second before GINA kicks in. Once you see the blue screen with an arrow, that's a good time to start menchmarking the RAID speed.
June 15, 2006 5:30:17 AM

GINA = Graphical Identification and Authentication i.e. the login screen


For anyone who doesn't feel like googling it but still wants to know what Wizzard9992 is talking about. Slick usage btw, not everyday you can throw that acronym around :) 
June 15, 2006 5:56:37 AM

My OS is on a Raptor and my backup software has been updated to recognize my NF4 Nvidia Raid arrays.

I already have a 400 GB RAID 1 array for easy backups.

So I am open to purchasing a 2nd 74 GB Raptor if I see numbers that convince me I will definately feel the difference.

I am just waiting for someone to post a link to the benchmarks that are going to make me a believer.

PS I don't work with large files in ways that would benifit from RAID 0 so I need something showing that files will open faster, games will load faster ...
June 15, 2006 2:09:59 PM

Question for you guys since it is already being asked.

I'm getting ready to build a new machine. I game frequently (FPS, RTS, MMO), and store a large amount of video files on my computer.

I plan on getting multiple hard drives, including a raptor with which to run my programs from.

Should I bother running 2 raptors in a RAID 0, or should I opt for more storage space?

Will the boost in performance warrant the extra trouble and risk, or will a raptor provide enough performance in itself?
June 15, 2006 2:16:15 PM

Quote:
My OS is on a Raptor and my backup software has been updated to recognize my NF4 Nvidia Raid arrays.

I already have a 400 GB RAID 1 array for easy backups.

So I am open to purchasing a 2nd 74 GB Raptor if I see numbers that convince me I will definately feel the difference.

I am just waiting for someone to post a link to the benchmarks that are going to make me a believer.

PS I don't work with large files in ways that would benifit from RAID 0 so I need something showing that files will open faster, games will load faster ...


RAID 0 probably won't (noticibly) affect games, unless there's a lot of loading (loading a stage in BF 2 for example). Even then, you need to make sure that you have a fast enough processor to chew through all of the data. Another consideration is bus speed. Some older RAID controllers ran on the PCI bus, which is a shared bus and is limited to 133MB/s. A lot of times that would limit the transfer speed. Most on-board RAID controllers that are not part of the southbridge sit on the PCI bus, and that will almost definately limit your RAID performance on a pair of raptors. (Intel Matrix and NF4 are southbridge, Silicon Image etc are not). It's possible the newer mobos will have the SI RAID chip on PCIe though.

Lastly, you need to make sure you have a decent controller. The NF4 chipset is known to have sub-par RAID performance (They might have addressed some of the issues with Firmware updates... I don't have NF4 so I don't keep track). Check THG's storage articles for a list of good peripheral controllers. An adaptec controller is expensive, but it will always give you top-notch performance if you can foot the bill.

There aren't a lot of real-world benches that will sell you on RAID 0. The synthetics are a great indicator of the difference between RAID and non-RAID. What you're doing is you're eliminating (or greatly reducing) the impact of the worst bottleneck in your computer, and that will impact just about everything you do to a varying degree. Games will see little benefit other than initial load times, P2P usually sees a huge throughput increase (Lots of seeking, huge files).
June 15, 2006 5:23:42 PM

Quote:
Question for you guys since it is already being asked.

I'm getting ready to build a new machine. I game frequently (FPS, RTS, MMO), and store a large amount of video files on my computer.

I plan on getting multiple hard drives, including a raptor with which to run my programs from.

Should I bother running 2 raptors in a RAID 0, or should I opt for more storage space?

Will the boost in performance warrant the extra trouble and risk, or will a raptor provide enough performance in itself?


I personally keep my Primary storage seperate from my archive storage; that way I get the best of both worlds.


@ Codesmith:

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2101

To put things in perspective, the performance gain from a Single Raptor to RAID 0 Raptors is greater than the performance gain of going from a regular drive to a Raptor.

If you noticed an increase in speed when you moved to your raptor, then you'll probably notice a difference if you go to RAID 0.
June 16, 2006 12:49:11 AM

Have you read the articles conclusion?, Anantech was extreemly harsh.

I have read plenty of articles expressing dissapointment with RAID. What I want to read is a reputable review of two drives (perferably Raptors) in RAID 0 config that says I there is noticiable improvement and then back it up with "real world" benchmarks.

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


Quote:
Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth.
June 16, 2006 2:39:35 AM

Quote:
Have you read the articles conclusion?, Anantech was extreemly harsh.

I have read plenty of articles expressing dissapointment with RAID. What I want to read is a reputable review of two drives (perferably Raptors) in RAID 0 config that says I there is noticiable improvement and then back it up with "real world" benchmarks.

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


Quote:
Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth.


Actually I missed the conclusion.

I'm sure you can find articles out there supporting RAID, but even the numbers themselves speak for exactly what the performance difference is, aside from a reviewers opinion (my own included). You get more boost going from 1 Raptor to 2 on RAID than you get going from a 7200 to a raptor.

There's a difference between running synthetics on a couple of fresh installs, and using it on a day-to-day basis on a fragmented drive with 20 programs running in the background.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying I've always noticed a difference. That might just be me, tho. I can tell when a computer is lagging from a bottleneck (The little orange light on the computer helps, too ;) ). I beat the bejeezus out of my computers, though. I also don't have a raptor: it's one thing to compare 2x7200 drives to a single, and something completely different when talking raptors.
June 16, 2006 2:55:07 AM

Well guys i just completed my RAID 0 with my two WD 160gb SATA II drives... and WOW what a differance.. it is so much faster to load everything. I had a tough time with the NVIDIA drivers.. so I went with SIL and that is working out just fine.


290gbs of pure power thanks!
June 18, 2006 8:26:41 PM

Quote:
Go read this before throwing your garbage around.


Did you google that yourself? Your parents must be proud...

I can google all day and find an online article to prove any point I want: for both sides of an argument.

RAID multitasks better than single drives, and that's where users really notice the difference. 10k or 7200 might affect benchmarks, but with what users notice - when the computer lags waiting for IO time - RAID shines.

Quote:
Well guys i just completed my RAID 0 with my two WD 160gb SATA II drives... and WOW what a differance..


Quote:
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying I've always noticed a difference. That might just be me, tho.



So go easy.
June 18, 2006 9:21:59 PM

Anandtech is one of the best, most professional review sites, so is storage review. Those articles have weight behind them.

I am a heavly multitasker. I have ten or more things going at once at times.

I also install a lot of software and I believe the faster tranfer rate would cut my install times in half.

Plus I am a backup nut so the RAID 0 risks won't affect me as much. At worse I would lose a weeks worth of data, but I can simply setup daily backup tasks to fix that.

Plus I think RAID 0 is cool and will give me bragging rights.

But buying a 2nd Raptor is a tough decision. I do a small amount or informal design, consulting, repair which I earmark for Computer upgrades so I have the money, but maybe I should save it for other futrure upgrades.

---
Don't get insulted when I distrust your or other peopls subjective experiences.

I am not even 100% sure I trust my subjective impression on the extent to which the Raptor makes my system feel more responsive. Maybe it only feels faster because I expect it to.

What I would love is if someone found a non-synthetic benchmarking suit that quantified what people think they feel when switching to a Raptor or a RAID 0 system.

Otherwise I will probably play it safe and wait until I can afford two more 400 GB RE drive and a hardware RAID 5 controller.
June 18, 2006 10:01:32 PM

After running multiple installations of WinXP (to include RAID 0, RAID1, and individual drives) on my 2x80gb WD HDDs. I prefer RAID 0. IMHO the performance is worth the risk, which is actually low since I tend to backup my data on another hard disk and CD/DVDs. And since I'm a gamer I don't have very much important data stored on my rig.

2GB DDR500 OCZ gold
A64 4000+
ASUS A8n SLI
June 19, 2006 2:18:13 AM

Here's some more "Meat and bones."

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/chipset-raid/index...

It's more server-oriented, and it gives some good info (like CPU usage with different chipsets, etc). Keep in mind that the new chipset, the i965, will use the ICH8 southbridge, which is 3 generations newer than the one reviewed. The chipset you use is VERY important. Also keep in mind that a lot of RAID users out there RAID on the NF4 chipset, which is a sub-par performer with regards to RAID.

For the most part, OfficeMark will likely provide the closest real-world idea of how RAID affects general IO, but it's still subjective. With the link I posted earler in the thread, there's more of a real-world performance gain going from one 10k to 2 10k drives than there is going from one 7200 to one 10k.

I multitask heavily. I use XDE, RSM, SQL, Oracle, Visual Studio, Office, etc quite a bit. I move files a lot and load a lot of stuff. I'll often be running OLAP queries, with a debugger running, and using CHM files (which are huge to load/parse). I'm a contractor so I work on a lot of different computers using different applications depending on where my contract is. I've always found computers with RAID to be much more responsive, but again, that's just an opinion.
!