Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does the WD Raptor X HD really faster than other 7200rpm HD?

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 8, 2006 7:26:22 PM

Does the WD Raptor X HD really faster than other 7200rpm HD? I am assuming both types of drives have the same cache. My maxtor 7200rpm 16mb cache seem to run slower when I have lots of games on it. I want to know if the raptor X HD will run much faster then regular maxtor HD.

More about : raptor faster 7200rpm

October 8, 2006 7:31:32 PM

The WD Raptor 150 gig drive is the fastest SATA drive available.
Large file transfers should complete around 20% to 40% faster than 7200rpm drives.
October 8, 2006 8:00:42 PM

Hey pic,
Like Rich said, it is ONE BAD MUTHA :twisted:
I have a WD Raptor 74 g SATA. I have one or 2 games on it just for comparison to my Maxtor 250 g SATA (where I store my games ) and there is DEFINITELY faster load times on the Rap. I think when the time is right, I will grab up a 150 g Rap for my games.

Antec P180 Performance Case
SeaSonic S12 600w PSU
Asus A8N32 SLI S-939 (bios 1103 V02.58 )
RealTek 97 Onboard
ATHLON 64 X2 4800+ Toledo Core (AMD v 1.3.1.0/MS hotfix/ Dual Opt)
2 G's of Corsair 3500LL Pro @ 400Mhz 2-3-2-6-1T
2- BFG 7900 GT OC in SLI (NV 91.31)
WD RAPTOR 74.3 G's / XP Home / SP2 & Apps
Maxtor SATA II 250 G's /Gaming / Movies / MP3's
Maxtor SATA II 250 G's /backup (unplugged)
Sony CDrom 52X
Plextor 708-A DVD/CD rom
Razer DiamondBack Optical mouse
Logitech Z-5500 Dolby Digital 5.1 THX 500w
Related resources
October 8, 2006 10:30:06 PM

ok. thanks for the reply guys. I will get the raptor.
October 8, 2006 11:09:07 PM

The raptors are definitely faster. If you are prepared to pay a lot more per GB, they are 100% worth it.

The biggest change I noticed apart from Windows / apps / games loading quicker was when you leave a memory intensive game the amount of time it takes for Windows to sort its swap out and to give you back control is significantly better.

They do make a little more noise than 7200 disks though - they sound a bit like SCSI disks. I personally quite like that though :) 
October 8, 2006 11:22:00 PM

Hi guys,
Yeah I really love my Raptor, it's old-school y'know? It barks and grumbles but you know it's there, it's working, it's (very much) alive! It's a good thing.
150GB is a large enough drive for a single WINDOWS_XP volume, and there is plenty of storage elsewhere on my rigs anyway.
But the Raptor is very fast, it really helps keep things stirred up.
Crazy price though... but it's only a 1-time payment, heheh.
It's those per-month payments that'll getcha, LoL...
Regards
October 9, 2006 9:53:34 AM

My question is.. Raptors in a Raid-0..

Im grabbing 2 Raptors with 16meg cache... wondering if putting them into a raid will significatly increase performance..
October 9, 2006 9:59:36 AM

Also... Was wondering what the biggest bottle neck is on most top end comps.. is it primarily the HDD?? From my experiance that always seems to slow my systems down.. this is the first system I will be building with Raptors.. so all my previous systems have been standard 7200 rpms..
October 9, 2006 11:09:23 AM

Raptor is 10k! That's why it is faster than 7.2k drives. :) 

Mike.
October 9, 2006 11:29:50 AM

1) Running 2 Raptors in RAID will not significantly increase desktop performance. You will get a faster burst transfer rate, and will probably not notice any *decrease* in speed (maybe a couple of % from the CPU overhead), but for the decrease in reliability it's totally not worth it.

I'm aware that other people will disagree with this.

2) The HDD (and, indeed, all other I/O) is most definitely the bottleneck on top-end computers.
October 9, 2006 11:33:54 AM

The only time you will notice the difference in a RAID 0 is video editing. (and similar giant file cache operations.) Other than that there can be a 1% to 3% swing in performance over the single drive, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, postive and negetive.
a b G Storage
October 9, 2006 12:47:21 PM

Quote:
Does the WD Raptor X HD really faster than other 7200rpm HD? I am assuming both types of drives have the same cache. My maxtor 7200rpm 16mb cache seem to run slower when I have lots of games on it. I want to know if the raptor X HD will run much faster then regular maxtor HD.


The Raptors are 10,000rpm drives.
And, just like the advertisement says "Fastest drive on the Planet" is a fairly true statement, for now anyway.

Now, as to how noticable all that speed will be depends on how you use your system. Windows will boot a little faster, programs will load a little faster, and programs that cache large amounts of data will speed up a little. A 10,000rpm drive just "feels" quick and responsive even just clicking around in windows, due to the very low seek time of the heads.

As you fill up your Raptor, it too will slow down from how fast it was when you first installed it, that is a characteristic of any drive, unfortunatley. But it will still be faster than your 7200rpm drive as it fills up.

Is the extra speed worth the price over a good 7200rpm drive? For most people, no.

Do they make more noise than my current drive? Yes.
Do they run hotter than my current drive? Probably.

However, if you are the type of person who doesn't mind spending extra cash for the very best performing hardware, then get yourself a Raptor or two, and a good fan for the front of your case to keep everything nice and cool.

Personally, on a side note, a couple of Raptors in RAID 0 will be my next upgrade.
October 9, 2006 8:30:09 PM

Quote:

But the Raptor is very fast, it really helps keep things stirred up.
Crazy price though... but it's only a 1-time payment, heheh.
It's those per-month payments that'll getcha, LoL...
Regards

LMAO, got to hate payments.
October 9, 2006 9:04:30 PM

Yes, it's expensive and some would say it's not worth it. True, but for the ones who want to have a faster game download then this Raptor would be it. I got 2 74 Gb Raptor in raid 0 configuration and even when I had at first one of it still I have faster game download like BF2. With raid I got even more faster download with Oblivion and etc. The faster the rpm, larger cache and bigger platter ( capacity) the better. 74Gb raptor is faster than 7200 regular hd and 150 Gb Raptor is faster than the 74Gb raptor.
October 9, 2006 9:32:17 PM

On my next build, I plan to use a Raptor 150 gig. Its faster than a normal HDD (10,000 rpm vs 7200), and time spent waiting is annoying to me. Yes, there are faster drives, up to 15,000, but they really get expensive in a hurry.

In the end, its all about how much money you have available, and what your priorities are. I still plan a second, 7200 drive for documents, but that's my priority.
October 10, 2006 5:47:23 AM

Great info here guys.. with the system im building im looking at games like fear, BF2142 and such..so these raptors should push them just fine.
October 12, 2006 1:51:56 AM

Dude, dont get two raptors RAID 0 for gaming. Thats a waste. Its like my boss at work that has a Quadro 4500 for Photoshop work. Its a $2000 card thats supposed to be used for advanced 3d modeling and visual enginering, and hes using it for photoshop, a complete waste, he would have been better off spending that amount of money on 12GBs of RAM and a killer RAID 0 or something, then he would have seen a pretty good performance boost .

Dont do the same he did with the RAID 0 raptors, spend the extra 220 on something else, like more RAM, better CPU or better vid card. I am entertaining the idea of buying two Raptors for a RAID 0 but thats because I want to do video editing, and im not 100% sure I need it. You will notice no significant improvement for day to day tasks to warrant a 220 dollar purchase.

Its even debatable whether you need it for video rendering. The only significant process thatll really benefit from a RAID 0 of two raptors is High Definition video editing. Thats the only real format that requires huge sustained write speeds. Other than that, a normal Raptor 150 should be fast enough, but usually when buying a video editing machine, you dont skimp on performance.

Three or four seconds shaved off of loading time on games, to me, doesnt constitue a 220 investment as a good one. If anything, id rather get a heck lot more RAM since I know the apps I use are very RAM dependent, and the more RAM I have, the less of a need for a RAID 0

In your case (gaming), blow the extra money on a higher-end vid card.


ONE QUICK QUESTION ON A CHANGE OF SUBJECT

For photoshop use, if I install a partition on a Raptor, so the paging file is on the OS partition, and the photoshop scratch disk is on the second partition, will I still suffer performance from having the the scratch disk on the same disk? Would be it be wiser to have a seperate HD instead of a seperate partition?

Thanks.
October 12, 2006 1:54:01 AM

Just wanted to say that im not saying all that stuff cause its an opinion of mine, I did a fair amount of research and thats the conclusion I arrived cause I had the same curiosity of whehter a Raptor 150 RAID 0 was worthwhile.
October 12, 2006 8:06:48 AM

>gentrinity

Yes, you will suffer a performance loss, and it will be the same as if you stuck everything on one giant partition. Unless you've got a controller which implements NCQ well (and you tend to have to pay quite a bit for that), and even then the performace will be degraded.

Better to have the scratch disk on another disk - and ideally the page file / temp files as well.
October 12, 2006 8:28:43 AM

Quote:
Dude, dont get two raptors RAID 0 for gaming. Thats a waste. .


Wrong. I have 2 150mb raptors in raid 0. its great for gaming and I'm definately not sorry. Faster is never a waste.
October 12, 2006 8:34:50 AM

>Wrong.

Right.

>I have 2 150mb raptors in raid 0.

So you automatically think it's better. We're back to "perceptions over science" again.
October 12, 2006 8:36:12 AM

Quote:
Does the WD Raptor X HD really faster than other 7200rpm HD? I am assuming both types of drives have the same cache. My maxtor 7200rpm 16mb cache seem to run slower when I have lots of games on it. I want to know if the raptor X HD will run much faster then regular maxtor HD.


The Raptors are 10,000rpm drives.
And, just like the advertisement says "Fastest drive on the Planet" is a fairly true statement, for now anyway.

Now, as to how noticable all that speed will be depends on how you use your system. Windows will boot a little faster, programs will load a little faster, and programs that cache large amounts of data will speed up a little. A 10,000rpm drive just "feels" quick and responsive even just clicking around in windows, due to the very low seek time of the heads.

As you fill up your Raptor, it too will slow down from how fast it was when you first installed it, that is a characteristic of any drive, unfortunatley. But it will still be faster than your 7200rpm drive as it fills up.

Is the extra speed worth the price over a good 7200rpm drive? For most people, no.

Do they make more noise than my current drive? Yes.
Do they run hotter than my current drive? Probably.

However, if you are the type of person who doesn't mind spending extra cash for the very best performing hardware, then get yourself a Raptor or two, and a good fan for the front of your case to keep everything nice and cool.

Personally, on a side note, a couple of Raptors in RAID 0 will be my next upgrade.

Dude thats so wrong, unlike you who don't actually have any raptors but are advising anyway, I actually have a couple of raptor 150's in Raid 0 and just about everything you said is wrong. The perfomance difference between that and a single 7200 is massive and obvious. For example, Windows XP is fully booted in less than 5 seconds. Any programs and games that do disk I/O are waaay faster. not just 'a little" like you keep saying, its enormous.
October 12, 2006 8:44:30 AM

>Niz

Mate, the RAID has nothing to do with the speed you've got, it's the fact that they're Raptors which is giving you the speed!

>just about everything you said is wrong

OK, so he said "it will still be faster than your 7200rpm drive as it fills up.", and your response is "The perfomance difference between that and a single 7200 is massive and obvious"

So you're saying the same thing.

Everything he has said you agree with - why are you arguing with him?
October 12, 2006 8:45:41 AM

Quote:
>Wrong.

Right.

>I have 2 150mb raptors in raid 0.

So you automatically think it's better. We're back to "perceptions over science" again.


OK lets talk science. Explain how any single desktop 7200 drive is gonna keep up with two server-class 10k NCQ drives in raid 0. Also explain how all the benchmarks that show raptor being significantly the fastest sata drive you can buy are just down to perception.
October 12, 2006 8:50:03 AM

Dude :D  Separate HD = separate heads swinging simultaneously :D  so, Dude whaddya think? :lol: 
October 12, 2006 9:00:11 AM

Quote:
>Niz

Mate, the RAID has nothing to do with the speed you've got, it's the fact that they're Raptors which is giving you the speed!


Well, its both. Raptors are fast anyway but two drives in raid 0 gives twice as much bandwidth (throughput) as a single drive. thats why raid 0 exists.
October 12, 2006 9:14:53 AM

For pity's sake, dude!

I say that Raptors are the fastest desktop drives! I don't disagree with that.

And if I have to post it once again, here we go;

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11

"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."

Look at the stats, look at the science.

RAID-0 is designed for server use - for maximum data throughput of sequential data. Almost nothing in the single-user model will ever use this performance, about the only thing is video editing - and high-res video editing at that.

For a single-user, you're much better off with a pair of drives, either mirrorred or just 2 drives.

Theoretical throughput numbers are all very well, but they've got *nothing* to do with average hard drive use. The speed of your average disk subsystem is determined by its latency, not it's data transfer rate.
October 12, 2006 9:40:05 AM

..and again i say bullcrap.
It doesn't matter if you're running 4 disk-intensive applications at once as a single user or if you're running as 4 seperate users all running a single app, you still get about the same amount of disk contention and therefore the same amount of benefit from raid 0.

The article basically presumes a desktop usage pattern where you're only running one disk-intensive app at a time. That may be fine for someone who only uses their pc to read email, surf and run MS office, but I've usually got one or two downloads running, a compile running, Linux running in a VM, and maybe a game running etc all at the same time. I've played with various drive configurations and I do notice the benefit of raid 0, regardless of what that article says.

Also the article advises to use a raid 1 array on desktops so you get data security. Apart from the fact that raid 1 gives you worse performance than a single drive, I happen to have a 3rd slower drive in my PC that I already back-up the raid to occasionally so I don't need the security aspect of raid 1 and as raid 0 doesn't use any disk space (like raid 1 does), there's no point not to use raid 0. Also keeping the array as two separate non-raid drives has no advantage over raid 0, but has disadvantage of bieng stuck with a maximum partition size of 1 drive, and less maximum performance. Its like being given a free choice between a fast car that carries more and doesn't use more gas or cost more than a smaller slower car. Why would you ever pick the small,slow car?
October 12, 2006 10:36:07 AM

>bullcrap

Oh dear. You can't argue with the science so you resort to inane comments.

Here's another link for you;

http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=Single...


Let me put it in simple terms;

You are not a server. Whatever usage pattern you think you have, you are still running as a single user, not a multi-user server.

There are countless articles across the web (any articles with figures other than the "sustained transfer rate") which show that RAID 0 has no noticeable performance benefit for a single-user system.

You feel your system is faster - well, hurrah for you. I can post as many articles as you want stating objectively that the system is no faster than it would be with a single Raptor - but because you "feel" that your system is faster, and can point to one objective measurement which states that the disk subsystem can theoretically pull data twice as fast as a single disk, you will always say your system is "faster" than one with a single Raptor.

As I said before, the limiting factor, hard-drive wise, in all modern computers is the latency of the disk drives. Not the max STR.
October 12, 2006 11:46:22 AM



http://tweakers.net/reviews/515

That review basically says that the storagereview and anandtech reviews werent that accurate. It talks about their testing methods and how a RAID 0 doesnt do anything spectacular on a PC for normal usage, however, there is some benefit to using it for digital content creation, and tweakers.net help highlight that point. So yes, if you want to be a digital content creator like me, go ahead and pull the trigger. I know I will make that investment in the future, no question about it, its just debatable whether you need it for anything else other than that.


Let me clarify something. I am a consumer with a tight budget, if you have the money to spend and dont mind the added risk of data loss, by all means, go ahead and pull the trigger. Its actually a rather inexpensive upgrade, compared to others. When you think about it, a monitor upgrade will bump you up a fair deal, so will an SLI config, even if you have the MOBO. Its not the cheapest performance enhancing upgrade, but if youre already maxed out and the next upgrade is a E6700 from an E6400, then yes, I think a RAID 0 with two raptors is a better upgrade path. But if you have a mediocre card, mediocre CPU, or mediocre RAM, buy those thing to see some real performance ehnacing upgrades.
October 12, 2006 12:08:35 PM

Yes, RAID 0 is good for content creation (even though it shouldn't be called RAID! ;) )

Yes, you may see some small improvements to things like game loads (on games where the files are all loaded in one big chunk, which isn't many of them), you may theoretically see improvements in other areas, but the major problem is *still* the latency of the disk.

That's why the 10k raptors are much better than the 7.2k normal hard drives.

RAIDing them is largely a waste of money, though.

Even that article qualifies its "speed improvements" with the article heading "subjective improvements" - there's no double-blind testing, or even single-blind testing. The tweakers.net guys went into the test thinking that the RAID would be faster, so of course they thought it was!

Finally, you'll note that in the article they use a dedicated hardware RAID controller. The performance overhead of using software RAID (which is what all on-board RAID cards are), outweighs the benefits of using the RAID altogether.
a b G Storage
October 12, 2006 1:07:35 PM

Quote:
Does the WD Raptor X HD really faster than other 7200rpm HD? I am assuming both types of drives have the same cache. My maxtor 7200rpm 16mb cache seem to run slower when I have lots of games on it. I want to know if the raptor X HD will run much faster then regular maxtor HD.


The Raptors are 10,000rpm drives.
And, just like the advertisement says "Fastest drive on the Planet" is a fairly true statement, for now anyway.

Now, as to how noticable all that speed will be depends on how you use your system. Windows will boot a little faster, programs will load a little faster, and programs that cache large amounts of data will speed up a little. A 10,000rpm drive just "feels" quick and responsive even just clicking around in windows, due to the very low seek time of the heads.

As you fill up your Raptor, it too will slow down from how fast it was when you first installed it, that is a characteristic of any drive, unfortunatley. But it will still be faster than your 7200rpm drive as it fills up.

Is the extra speed worth the price over a good 7200rpm drive? For most people, no.

Do they make more noise than my current drive? Yes.
Do they run hotter than my current drive? Probably.

However, if you are the type of person who doesn't mind spending extra cash for the very best performing hardware, then get yourself a Raptor or two, and a good fan for the front of your case to keep everything nice and cool.

Personally, on a side note, a couple of Raptors in RAID 0 will be my next upgrade.

Dude thats so wrong, unlike you who don't actually have any raptors but are advising anyway, I actually have a couple of raptor 150's in Raid 0 and just about everything you said is wrong. The perfomance difference between that and a single 7200 is massive and obvious. For example, Windows XP is fully booted in less than 5 seconds. Any programs and games that do disk I/O are waaay faster. not just 'a little" like you keep saying, its enormous.

Uh, Niz, I actually do use Raptors on all my servers at work, I have one network storage box with 6-150 gig raptors in it, so I think I know exactly what I am talking about, and by the way, just exactly what is your point? Everthing I said was completely wrong, then you go about saying all the exact same things? The only thing I don't agree with you on is the exact amount of "speed". But it's all relative, what you say is a massive boost to me is only a small improvement when talking about overall machine performance, and I doubt very seriously if Windows XP boots completely in less than 5 seconds. If so, it's a new install with nothing on it yet. My work servers running NT and XP both still take about 45 seconds to a full minute to boot, even with the Raptors. Again, it's all realtive to what you do, just like I said.
October 12, 2006 2:55:07 PM

Science is guessing about reality, perception IS reality.
October 12, 2006 3:12:27 PM

>perception IS reality

How... uh... open-minded of you...

You crazy odd person.
October 12, 2006 3:49:32 PM

Quote:


I had already warned you about this topic last and you seem to be very forgetful. This is your final warning. DON'T EVER THINK YOU CAN ESCAPE ME IN MY ABSENCE BECAUSE YOU WON'T!
You keep this up and you'll become the next BaronBS of the HDD forum.


You WARNED me? This is my last warning? who the fuck do you think you are?
October 12, 2006 3:57:54 PM

Quote:
>Wrong.

Right.

>I have 2 150mb raptors in raid 0.

So you automatically think it's better. We're back to "perceptions over science" again.


OK lets talk science. Explain how any single desktop 7200 drive is gonna keep up with two server-class 10k NCQ drives in raid 0. Also explain how all the benchmarks that show raptor being significantly the fastest sata drive you can buy are just down to perception.

Well firstly... his point was that you are just thinking that the Raid 0 is boosting over a single drive. Obviously the single Raptor (which you will not find in HP etc. servers btw, it is not an enterprise product) is faster than a single 7200 drive. However RAID 0 for a single user machine offers no guarantee of increased performance nor does NCQ. Both of these will offer an advantage on a file server etc. with many users accessing files but for a single user are as likely to decrease performance in real world applications.

Like I said no one will argue that the single Raptor is not faster than all other consumer drives out there, but you may be better off spending that extra money on a faster processor/more RAM/better video card (unless your number one worry is load times rather than actually performance)
October 12, 2006 4:46:23 PM

Quote:
>Wrong.

Right.

>I have 2 150mb raptors in raid 0.

So you automatically think it's better. We're back to "perceptions over science" again.


OK lets talk science. Explain how any single desktop 7200 drive is gonna keep up with two server-class 10k NCQ drives in raid 0. Also explain how all the benchmarks that show raptor being significantly the fastest sata drive you can buy are just down to perception.

Well firstly... his point was that you are just thinking that the Raid 0 is boosting over a single drive. Obviously the single Raptor (which you will not find in HP etc. servers btw, it is not an enterprise product) is faster than a single 7200 drive. However RAID 0 for a single user machine offers no guarantee of increased performance nor does NCQ. Both of these will offer an advantage on a file server etc. with many users accessing files but for a single user are as likely to decrease performance in real world applications.

Like I said no one will argue that the single Raptor is not faster than all other consumer drives out there, but you may be better off spending that extra money on a faster processor/more RAM/better video card (unless your number one worry is load times rather than actually performance)

>> Obviously the single Raptor (which you will not find in HP etc. servers btw, it is not an enterprise product)

Are you saying a server wouldn't use a single drive or that raptors aren't meant for use in servers? We've just set up two new datacenters. The computer hardware for each cost 15 million dollars and uses servers and SAN storage from HP. Guess what drives HP are using in their top-end SAN? Raptors. OK they are SCSI not SATA but other than the interface its the same drive as the SATA. Even on the WD website, the raptor drives are listed under the enterprise tab.

>> Both of these will offer an advantage on a file server etc. with many users accessing files but for a single user are as likely to decrease performance in real world applications.

Sure I agree that a server system will see a more benefit, but to say there is absolutely no benefit from raid 0 on a single-user system is wrong. I'm speaking from actual experience of it on a day-to-day basis, not some article on the web.

Please try to understand my point that at the disk I/O level there is no difference between 5 different users connected to a server all running one different app each, and a single user running those same 5 apps concurrently. Basically the only difference is that those 5 applications are being run from the same account, which makes no difference to disk demand and performance at all.

>> but you may be better off spending that extra money on a faster processor/more RAM/better video card

I'm currently in the middle of a new system build and either already have or am getting those too. I'm not in a limited buget situation so I don't need to compromise on one thing to afford another. Maybe for other people price is a factor. Just not for me.

I still don't see that having the extra performance available of 2 raptors in raid 0 is a bad thing even if my usage pattern doesn't get as much benefit from it as a file server would. For sure the performance isn't going to be worse than just a single drive. To argue that I just can't be seeing any performance benefit at all is just plain wrong. Just copying big files around for example is noticeably a lot faster presumably because the effective latency of a 2 drive array compared to a single drive is better and also the bandwidth is doubled. Anyway apart from performance, it also gives me the opportunity to make partitions bigger than a single drive.

I'm telling you regardless of whatever link or technical argument you guys come up with you DO notice the extra performance of raid 0 in real world usage, unless your'e just surfing or just running other such disk-friendly apps. If you really want to argue against me then please just set up a raid 0 array for yourself, start say 5 disk-intensive apps at the same time and time it, then try exactly the same thing on a single drive system. Once you've done that THEN tell me I'm wrong.
October 12, 2006 10:14:01 PM

Quote:

Finally, you'll note that in the article they use a dedicated hardware RAID controller. The performance overhead of using software RAID (which is what all on-board RAID cards are), outweighs the benefits of using the RAID altogether.


So what youre saying is that RAID would benefit more from a hardware controller instead of the onboard RAID?

Is there a big difference between the onboard and dedicated?

Ive been meaning to do some research on that since im a little fuzzy in that area.

Again, id rather waste that money on RAM, which will improve my multitasking workflow considerably, but if it gets to a point where im doing alot of video work, especially HD, im definately going to consider a RAID 0 of two Raptors or more, cause the sustained data transfer double up. And thats when RAID 0 will truly shine in single user scenarios. HD starts at around 150MBs, and can go much higher. The question is when the RAID 0 stops being the bottleneck and the CPU and RAM become the factors limiting rendering performance. But I guess youre going to need to be doing some pretty high quality rendering with 4 or more Raptors for that to happen. What do you think?
October 13, 2006 8:17:39 AM

>at the disk I/O level there is no difference between 5 different users connected to a server all running one different app each, and a single user running those same 5 apps concurrently


You are correct. However your premise is fatally flawed. Very few servers are set up to have 5 different users all running one different app each. Most servers are set up to have 5 different users (or 50, or 500) running the *same* app each time - massive concurrency.

*that* is where the goodness and juicyness of STR comes in. It's sequential data which is being read off the disks.

In your case of 1 user running 5 different apps, you're *really* giving an example in favour of the "latency over STR" side of the argument. 5 different apps require you to access 5 different areas of the disk at the same time - so it's down to how quickly the disk and heads can move that makes the speed difference.

RAID 0 shows performance benefits when you're *not* multitasking at all. When you're providing sequential data - such as for content creation.


>I'm speaking from actual experience of it on a day-to-day basis, not some article on the web.

So, basically, you're saying "don't give me the facts, I'm happy in my comfortable world of what I feel to be correct!"

Once again, we're back to the "perception over evidence" side of the argument.

>effective latency of a 2 drive array compared to a single drive is better

Uh, no. It's actually increased as you've got another step in the drive control process. Not by much, but it is increased. Which is another reason why the teeny tiny performance gain from the increased bandwidth isn't worth it.

> I'm telling you regardless of whatever link or technical argument you guys come up with you DO notice the extra performance of raid 0 in real world usage

So, basically, you're claiming that perception beats science?

>If you really want to argue with me

Why would I bother doing benchmarks etc when I've posted links to benchmarks which have done *exactly* what you said to do, and found the RAID 0 array to be not significantly faster? You don't believe those, how on earth would you believe me?
!