Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

single Raptor vs two raptors in RAID 1

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 24, 2006 9:24:26 PM

Anyone have any benchmark comparing the single disk vs 2 in raid1 performances?

dont really matter if its the 70 or 150gb disk,
heck would even like to see some 500gb SATA2 disks in RAID1.
November 24, 2006 10:43:46 PM

I don't have any benchmark data, but I will say that modern RAID implementations will use the mirrored data in a RAID-1 setup to interleave reads to both drives and therefore increase the read transfer rate. Write transfer rates remain the same as a single drive.
November 24, 2006 11:56:44 PM

Quote:
wrong, raid 1 will probably actually slow your system because it makes copies of everything as a back up on both drives. Either get the 150gig raptor for space/speed, or two 74 gig raptors in raid 0 for more speed and slightly more expensive



well friend told me otherwise, + wiki info descripe it in details how they work, except RAID 1 they write about might need use specific controllers for disks for them to load on both disks, tho id think that would make it less likely to work...

Thing is its READ Performance i want a ton of. id be a very happy man if i can get a 200-300 Mb/sec with 2 to 4 disk x raptors or other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Related resources
November 25, 2006 12:26:14 AM

Quote:
raid 0 is for you then, that combines the bandwiths of both drives and treatss them as one (two heads are better than one) so what you get is performance of at least 200 mb/s with the dual 74mb raptor array
the 150 is cheaper, and if you can go dual with that, you are practically guaranteed close to 300


This person's interpretation of raid is flawed. A single 74gb raptor doesn't hit over 100mb/s, so how exactly do two of them manage 200+? IIRC, the 150gb raptors barely topped 80mb/s sustained transfer rates. Maybe he's talking about burst transfer rates. I can't think of any real world situation off the top of my head where a burst transfer rate would actually be indicative of any type of performance other than the interface performance. Someone else is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, I think that if read speed is what you're looking for, a raid 1 could help slightly to moderately in terms of read speed. Some controllers might actually do what you're talking about, and read a different sector off each drive simultaneously.

Overall a raid 0 would be faster, but it seems to me you're trying to get some extra reliability over 1 drive while also achieving higher read speeds.

Are you doing video encoding or something? If you're just looking for game loading times to be cut, a single raptor would probably do you fairly well. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe games are slow to load because of two factors. One is that a lot of times the files are compressed, and it takes your cpu time to uncompress them and load them into ram. The other might be file fragmentation, where lots of little files need to be read in succession while loading - this is where a faster seek time will help, which is what the raptors offer.
November 25, 2006 12:36:57 AM

In that case you are right. 200mb/s read speeds should be easily achievable with 4 raptors. Guess I was thrown off by most of the posts asking for information on a 2 disk array.
November 25, 2006 1:55:34 AM

Raid0+1 is best for speed with redundancy, although if it's pure speed he wants without worrying too much about backing up important data he should just raid-0, as it'll be cheaper. Note though, that he may not see an increase over a single raptor drive. Unless his game save files are quite large, a single 150 gig raptor drive may be enough. Alternatively, 2 - 7200rpm drives in Raid-0 provide about the same performance as a single raptor drive, but they cost much less and provide you with overall more storage. However, they are not quite as safe for storing data. But if you don't mind replacing a drive, and reinstalling everything should one drive fail then this may be the way to go. Odds of a drive failing are not that high within 5 years, as long as you buy quality like SeaGate or WD. Many complain against Maxtor drives, although some will say they're a great value. I personally will not buy Maxtor.
November 25, 2006 9:23:05 AM

thanks for all your suggestions here, ill try out some of this soon and see if a raptor or 2 bigger in raid0 does what needed, one question tho, is there any bench/monitoring software you can run in the background to monitor what the current transfer rates are, burst/read etc say while running a game?

to compare it to the avg/max the disk setup was able to perform, i agree some games slow loads are due compressed files but again if the CPU handles this fast enough the harddisks could be the bottleneck, would be nice to find the bottleneck and fix it :p 
November 25, 2006 9:35:49 AM

Is the 5-10 seconds of loading time worth the extra $600 you'd be spending on 4 raptors over 1 raptor?

Personally, I'd prefer more storage space.
November 25, 2006 12:43:06 PM

Raid 1 Characteristics and Advantages:

One Write or two Reads possible per mirrored pair

Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks

100% redundancy of data means no rebuild is necessary in case of a disk failure, just a copy to the replacement disk

Transfer rate per block is equal to that of a single disk

Under certain circumstances, RAID 1 can sustain multiple simultaneous drive failures

Simplest RAID storage subsystem design

Disadvantages:

Highest disk overhead of all RAID types (100%) - inefficient

Typically the RAID function is done by system software, loading the CPU/Server and possibly degrading throughput at high activity levels. Hardware implementation is strongly recommended

May not support hot swap of failed disk when implemented in "software"

Recommended uses:

1. Accounting
2. Payroll
3. Financial
4. Any application requiring very high availability

Now if you want speed then raid 0 is the way. It maybe not be a fault tolerant set up for one drive can fail and lost the data of the array. But raid 0 is the fastest performance and highest overhead (uses all space). This is perfect for gaming. Usually raid 0 user implements two main drives in raid 0 configurations and a third separate drive for backup and storage drive. This is also the lowest cost raid to implement.
November 25, 2006 2:17:05 PM

Quote:
Is the 5-10 seconds of loading time worth the extra $600 you'd be spending on 4 raptors over 1 raptor?

Personally, I'd prefer more storage space.


Agreed. Also, for a free utility to measure performance, although it's not as simple to use as a benchmark perhaps, is Windows Performance Monitor. You can get to it by going to control panel, administrative tools, and double clicking the performance shortcut. Explore around, once you figure it out it's not so hard. You can select how it displays information and which information it displays. You can even set it to log over an extended period of time and show you averages.
November 25, 2006 4:10:30 PM

Unless you have a dual core processor. :-)
November 26, 2006 8:34:12 PM

nTune doesn't work with X2's :-)
November 26, 2006 8:56:10 PM

I DL'd the newest. 5.05 or something. Dual core chips are outlined as not being compatible. Part of it does work though. I put it on my Athlon64 3000+ system and it told me what I already knew. My NB/6150 GPU is running really hot. My CPU is around 40C, my NB is around 60C. The new cooler I already had ordered for my Northbridge gets here tomorrow. =)
November 27, 2006 12:13:46 AM

The temp varies from 30-40 degrees. Right now it says 31 degrees for CPU and 32 system. My NB is @ 57. I just got done doing some gaming and it's dropped a bit, and it's cooler in here now than it was earlier. I listed the high end. The NB is so close to the CPU that they produce heat together. I've read about this board having problems with heat. No it's not a Dell. It's an X-Qpack case with a slightly modded 500w liberty and Corsair CMX ram, C2.
November 27, 2006 1:09:37 AM

just to toss a lil bit more info into the mix - if you really want max performance....

try to get a real raid card - there are a few decent ones out there for sata that wont break yur bank (though i can only guess what yur bank is)
wish i had some links for you but ive only tinkered with scsi raid.. (btw ... in the end i just ended up using the 2 - 10k RPM scsi drives, as single drives, for my personal computer, the performance gain wasn't so super dooper... *my technical term)

which could be accounted to the exact card i was using, but sometimes you just dont get what you're expecting.....

you may want to read into some info on sata raid cards, i do believe toms here has a couple reviews....

also read into stripe size (it makes a difference depending on the size of the files you are moving....)

in any case if you feel the need for raid, just go with whatever you can at a good price - i would, if i were you, use a raid0, then get a nice fat (250+GB) drive for Data and whatever else you dont want to loose...

there's a term to be mentioned as well... i think its ummm nested arrays.. some decent controlers allow this setup, which is also a bit of a performance upgrade

hell if ya got the cash for 4 10k RPM drives - get two cards that allow nested arrays

basically what it does (i think LOL)
card 1 - 2 drives in a raid 0
card 2 - 2 drives in a raid 0
then it can combine the 2 raid 0 settups into 1 - raid 0 settup .....

2 seperate cards handling the seperate arrays and processing of data movement actually helps (though probably not enough for average joe to notice)

just depends on how much of a speed freak you wanna be and yur wallet...

good luck.. may the farce be with you .. er somethin......
November 27, 2006 2:11:06 AM
November 27, 2006 2:44:43 AM

Yeah, but wouldn't you think that on a mobo like the A8N32-SLI Deluxe that the nVidia raid controller would be pretty darn good? I mean, it's nVidia, and it's a GAMING mobo...complete with an overclocking program and SLI.
November 27, 2006 2:53:36 AM

NVIDIA chipset + OC = Never in the same sentence.
November 27, 2006 2:54:44 AM

Quote:
A single 74gb raptor doesn't hit over 100mb/s


Well, not according to HDTune 2.62. My 74gb Western Digital ADFD Raptor has a sustainted max transfer rate of 84mb/s with the average being 72mb/s. My burst was 115.9mb/s. You're right in that RAID of JBOD of any kind doesn't simply add the bandwidths together for one super speed. That's why we have 3gb/s SATA drives.
November 27, 2006 2:58:32 AM

Quote:
NVIDIA chipset + OC = Never in the same sentence.

Oh boy! Those 680i sure are overclocking far!
November 27, 2006 3:06:52 AM

Heh, that's what I was thinking when I read that...=P
November 27, 2006 3:15:57 AM

Meh. I meant the 5XX. =P
November 27, 2006 3:33:05 AM

Quote:
Meh. I meant the 5XX. =P

Look at that DFI LanParty 590 AM2! It's an overclocking BEAST!
November 27, 2006 3:47:55 AM

I meant Intel. Meh.
November 27, 2006 3:51:56 AM

My Asus NF590 can't overclock my Conroe for shiit, plus im SOL for 1333Mhz FSB CPUs!
November 27, 2006 4:45:20 AM

Quote:
Yeah, but wouldn't you think that on a mobo like the A8N32-SLI Deluxe that the nVidia raid controller would be pretty darn good? I mean, it's nVidia, and it's a GAMING mobo...complete with an overclocking program and SLI.


I'm not doggin yur comment here my friend.....
onboard raid (for most mainstream *read* non-networking, type motherboards is mostly software raid

that is it uses software to control raid functions, which means it chews up CPU cycles, now of course you can counter with... well new CPUs are so fast etc etc.. that you probably wont notice

and i partially agree.. and i think some software raid solutions have come a long a bit further than older ones.. (one would hope something newer=better), but i think its better processors handling the functions more than anything

Simply put, a full hardware raid controller card will be better in Every way, as long as yur pennies are spent on the proper hardware.. ergo *no fakeraid cards*

i wont rant to much on hardware vrs software controllers to much though, you guys are all smart enough to know the difference between sw and hw bennifts

just comes down to bragging rights and how much of a speed freak you want to be if this is going to be on a home PC for personal use heh..
November 27, 2006 12:55:48 PM

I'd buy a faster processor before I'd buy a new raid card and take up a PCI slot. :-P
November 27, 2006 2:01:57 PM

I would buy RAID 5, 3 HDDs giving you the storage of 2, increased read speed and data redundancy.
!