Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

raid 0 game loading times

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 28, 2006 6:02:12 AM

just thought i would post this... the posted benefits of raid 0 seem to fall in line with whats 'generally' experienced in game loading times, for the reasons listed in the article (contrasting whats stated by most people who think otherwise about raid 0)...

if anyone cares to verify this, using two or more different cpus, but identical setups otherwise, both in raid 0, and single drive configurations, theyre welcome to...

http://faqs.ign.com/articles/606/606669p1.html


EDIT: hm... apparently this is very true... theres a much easier way to test though than switching out cpus... ...the easiest way is if you have dual core cpu, and a game that supports multithreading, such as quake 4 (it tends to use upwards of 70% of both cores when theyre in use, sometimes as high as 100%, though less often), so, its a good game to test... havent checked other games though... but, setting your cpu affinity from both cores, to only 1 core, will drop the total processing capability up to half... ...i also have 4*36GB raptors (3 of which are in raid 0, for hosting my OS and various applications, and a 4th non raided which is being used for the pagefile, and to keep a few files as an extra backup, in addition to other backups)... i copied quake 4 over to the 4th raptor though

i dont have a watch to time the loading with, so i just had to go by how long it seemed to take to load each level... where the pauses in loading happened, guaging the difference between just one core, and both cores in use, and the difference between 3 raptors in raid 0, and the single raptor... ...apparently the only real difference in loading times, was when i switched the game over to just 1 core, instead of using both cores... ...the 3 raptors in raid 0 had very little impact (compared to the single raptor), or not that i noticed really anyhow...

but, thats an inexpensive way to test; if you already have a dual core cpu on hand, and a game that can take advantage of the second core (which is why i used quake 4, though oblivion is also multithreaded too, as are quite a few other games)... ...and, goes to show, that i guess if you want to load games faster, instead of investing in raid 0, just get a faster cpu/memory configuration (because memory speed also affects overall cpu processing speed)... ...overclocking your existing cpu and memory should help here also... ...thats not to say either, that you should just forget about hdd speed entirely, hdds are slow enough as it is, compared to every other major speed based component lol... so, speed and capacity is definetly the way to go for general use when it comes to hdds...

as far as the raptors i have, yes, i did purchase them a few years ago to benefit game loading times, among other things, such as just helping my computer to be more responsive, lol... but, i never saw much change for games, even when i had all 4 in raid 0...

now, for older games, i suppose this might not quite be the case, because the game levels might not take that much processing and decompressing to load, and raid 0 may benefit better there... but for current games, a faster processor/memory configuration definetly seems to help speed things up, such as this...

anyhow, yeah... this definety is the case so far... have to test some other games though too sometime, just to see if its not just isolated to quake 4 (i wouldnt think it would be, but just to see)
November 28, 2006 10:39:32 PM

i agree...while it does speed up data read/write times to/from the HDD, in my experience with RAID 0, I have found no improvement in game load times. I have seen, however games load faster once i've upgraded my CPU, ram and MB chipset.

However, while upgrading CPU & memory for faster game loading times, this is a relatively expensive option (especially given the current prices for ram). For overall system performance, I feel that in terms of "bang for buck", system performance can be improved very cheaply by adding extra HDDs in RAID 0. while games will not load any faster, i have found that overall system responsiveness improves, as do load times (marginally), and program installations.

lets face it, as the recent THWG article on HDDs pointed out, while capacity has gone up at an incredible rate (and costs gone down), HDD performance has not increased as nearly the same rate. I suppose RAID is just a way around this.
November 28, 2006 11:04:11 PM

This keeps getting asked time after time, and time after time blind fools who use RAID 0 keep touting its benefits without realizing it really doesn't help in load times.

I remember the MaxPC issue, it was about 2 years ago and it was a side column article. If you search the net you will find numerous instances of RAID 0 being debunked. Glad to hear more than 1 person realizes it is useless in gaming. :) 
Related resources
November 28, 2006 11:20:07 PM

yeah, the most inexpensive way to get a reduction in game loading times, is to just overclock what you already have... seeing as how most people on THG do that already, lol

and yep, there are quite a few articles out that debunk any benefit raid 0 offers for gaming... ...raid 0 is just gonna offer strictly raw data read/write performance boosts for audio, video, other media editing, and the like
November 29, 2006 12:05:21 AM

Mind you, the one benefit i have found for RAID 0 in gaming is to run the page file off a stand-alone array of RAID 0 disks. I started playing BF2 with 1Gb of ram and a decent video card (7900GT) and found that while graphics performance was excellent, memory lag was a major issue. I baulked when i saw the price of another 1Gb of ram, and realised that RAID would be a cheaper option. Once i have set up a RAID 0 array of 2 X 7200.9s, with only the page file (2Gb) running off it, lag in BF2 became much less of an issue.

I've seen people on the forums state that running the page file off a RAID 0 disk is unsatisfactory because the latency of the drives increase (worsens) with RAID, but in my experience, (at least with BF2) this has not been the case.
November 29, 2006 12:34:37 AM

Quote:

...i also have 4*36GB raptors (3 of which are in raid 0,

i dont have a watch to time the loading with, so i just had to go by how long it seemed to take to load each level... where the pauses in loading happened, guaging the difference between just one core, and both cores in use, and the difference between 3 raptors in raid 0, and the single raptor... ...apparently the only real difference in loading times, was when i switched the game over to just 1 core, instead of using both cores... ...the 3 raptors in raid 0 had very little impact (compared to the single raptor), or not that i noticed really anyhow...

as far as the raptors i have, yes, i did purchase them a few years ago to benefit game loading times, among other things, such as just helping my computer to be more responsive, lol... but, i never saw much change for games, even when i had all 4 in raid 0...

now, for older games, i suppose this might not quite be the case, because the game levels might not take that much processing and decompressing to load, and raid 0 may benefit better there... but for current games, a faster processor/memory configuration definetly seems to help speed things up, such as this...


1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed[/b] at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:
November 29, 2006 12:42:43 AM

Quote:
I've seen people on the forums state that running the page file off a RAID 0 disk is unsatisfactory because the latency of the drives increase (worsens) with RAID, but in my experience, (at least with BF2) this has not been the case.


Those are precisely my concerns. I've been a little hesitant to raid 0 my disks because of the increased latencies that brings. Can someone explain how, despite the latencies, how it can bring better read/write performances? :roll:
November 29, 2006 12:50:16 AM

Quote:

...i also have 4*36GB raptors (3 of which are in raid 0,

i dont have a watch to time the loading with, so i just had to go by how long it seemed to take to load each level... where the pauses in loading happened, guaging the difference between just one core, and both cores in use, and the difference between 3 raptors in raid 0, and the single raptor... ...apparently the only real difference in loading times, was when i switched the game over to just 1 core, instead of using both cores... ...the 3 raptors in raid 0 had very little impact (compared to the single raptor), or not that i noticed really anyhow...

as far as the raptors i have, yes, i did purchase them a few years ago to benefit game loading times, among other things, such as just helping my computer to be more responsive, lol... but, i never saw much change for games, even when i had all 4 in raid 0...

now, for older games, i suppose this might not quite be the case, because the game levels might not take that much processing and decompressing to load, and raid 0 may benefit better there... but for current games, a faster processor/memory configuration definetly seems to help speed things up, such as this...


1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed[/b] at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:

raid 0 can be done with any amount of drives, as long as its 2 or more... you could make a 100+ drive raid 0 array if you had that many available channels and drives available, even completely unmatching drives, if you really wanted to... ...i wasnt using raid 1... the seperate 4th raptor, was just a standalone drive, not associated with the raid array directly

the raid controller i have is just built into the nforce4 chipset, only supporting raid 0, 1, 0+1 and jbod... so raid 5 wasnt an option via hardware

as far as oblivion though... ill have to test it later on, i have it installed, but my brothers on my computer right now

as far as game loading times being cut in half just because of raid 0?, thats all speculation, and why this thread was posted to begin with, to show whether there is any credence to raid 0 actually giving the benefit people are wanting it to give... without bolstering outragous claims that cant be reproduced

when it comes to game loading times, if the data does not need to be uncompressed to play, the level will load much faster with just raid 0 as its just loading from the hdd, but when you start including the cpu and such into the loading too, the hdd then takes more of a back seat...
November 29, 2006 1:26:20 AM

Let me get this right: not content to simply halve the safety of your data, you are happy to reduce it to 33% of the reliability of a single drive?

And you do all this for zero, or trivial performance increases? Increases which would be spanked to death if you spent half that money on faster CPU and RAM?

Obviously you are not in the trade, or you would NEVER do that. If you knew the number of HDDs I've had to return on behalf of clients over the years, you'd be horrified.

Thanks for giving me a good giggle. I really needed one!
November 29, 2006 1:29:26 AM

Quote:

1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:
[/b]

Wait, so I need 4gb of ram to play oblivion? Maybe that's why it brings everyone's computers to a screeching halt! And I can't use more than 2 drives in raid-0? Well damn! I guess all those people with 4 raptors in raid-0 must be idiots!/sarcasm

Most of the data is compressed to save space, and thus requires time for your cpu to uncompress it and store it in ram. Close that mouth
November 29, 2006 1:38:07 AM

um... ok... ...i do have all my data backed up elsewhere in several places, so redundancy isnt the issue, or a concern at all to be honest currently, so im risking nothing by doing so... ...however, if someone is running their computer, with no backups whatsoever, for any of their important data, that would be foolish

my reasoning for originally purchasing multiple raptors a few years ago, was because i was unaware of the nominal benefits for the intended purposes... admittedly it was a mistake... but, if i can still put them to use and incur no penalty doing so, why wouldnt i?... windows boots up in close to no time flat, thats worthwhile in itself, lol

...did anyone even read the link at the top though?... thats all i was posting based on, and then drew conclusions from that as well... people dont need to get offended or upset or anything because of it... as if i was just making things up...
November 29, 2006 3:38:08 AM

Quote:
...did anyone even read the link at the top though?... thats all i was posting based on, and then drew conclusions from that as well... people dont need to get offended or upset or anything because of it... as if i was just making things up...


Yes. I understand that, and that's all I am trying to speak to, but other items need to be clarified as well.

Quote:
1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. Shocked
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. Rolling Eyes
[/b]

No more from you.

Here ya go

Another one for ya

Yet another link

Hardware Requirements for RAID

Quote:
Simple striping (RAID 0) requires two or more drives; mirroring (RAID 1) requires two drives; and striping with parity requires at least three drives (two or more for data stripes and one for parity, whether it is dedicated to a single drive or distributed). Striping with double parity (RAID 6) requires at least four drives


Next:

Quote:
Those are precisely my concerns. I've been a little hesitant to raid 0 my disks because of the increased latencies that brings. Can someone explain how, despite the latencies, how it can bring better read/write performances? Rolling Eyes


In RAID 0 the drives are striped based on a predetermined stripe size specified when you originally build the array in the RAID BIOS. They range from 16k-1024k (I think). Tests show that the best stripe size for normal usage is I think 16k or 32k, and if you deal with really large files, 1024k. Once the array is built, the OS sees the two disks as one and addresses them as a single drive. So when you load a game the system sends a request to the RAID controller and says "I want data1.cab" (for example). The RAID controller says "ok, you got it" it then begins reading the drives alternately. Meaning, the first 16k (or whatever stripe size you specify) is read from drive 0 and the next 16k is read from drive 1, then the next 16k comes from drive 0 and the next 16k comes from drive 1, so on and so forth.

So when you move large files there is a decided advantage to the increased throughput that comes from RAID 0, but seek times don't change because the disks themselves are still operating at the same speed, its just that you are alternating the loads to artificially increase throughput. I say artificially because there is no physical change in the throughput, just the way it is allocated changes, instead of 2 point to point connections, they are combined into 1 big one.

Quote:
Most of the data is compressed to save space, and thus requires time for your cpu to uncompress it and store it in ram. Close that mouth


Bingo. The bottleneck is the CPU decompression speed, not the hard drive in game loading.

To non-believers: Here is a quick test that confirms it: Set your system to stock and load BF2, then OC your proc and load BF2, compare the times. Then RAID 0 (with stock CPU) your drives and compare to your system stock and you will realize the truth
November 29, 2006 3:52:44 AM

exactly :) 
November 29, 2006 3:56:41 AM

word.

lol, ok it is definitely time to sleep now. Peace!
November 29, 2006 3:58:35 AM

ok lol
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 29, 2006 4:55:48 AM

Let me give you guys an example...


My old computer was a P4- 3.06Ghz HT (very first hyper threaded one), and 80GB x2 in RAID 0, 512MB RAM. It seemed pretty snappy, loading games, etc...

I was working on a system one time that had an AXP 3000+, 512mb RAM, and an 80GB HD. So it should be fairly similar (the system set up with the exception of the RAID 0, they both had XP PRO).

As I was using this AXP3000+ I noticed it took visibly 2-3 seconds longer to open up the "Start->All programs" than my own system with RAID 0, AND it had LESS programs installed on it.

Anyways, i'm never going back to non-raid. I have been happily using RAID 0 since 2003, and never will turn back.

Currently i'm Running 2X 150GB Raptors in RAID 0, and it screams!
While playing games, i'm usually the first one to load, as an example in Warhammer 40k, I load in under 20 seconds, usually waiting for 1-2 minutes for other people to load :( 

During the whole time i've been using my RAID 0 system not once has it ever failed on me. FYI I have a 500GB secondary drive that stores all of my critical DATA, so i'm not too concerned about RAID corruption (it has never happened so far to me).

FYI, it's good to have a battery back up system, currently I have a UPS ($250 investment to protect my $3600CDN computer) for my computer, because computer's are highly susceptible to power-fluctuations. This could be why my systems have always run solid.

Just thought I would post my little FYI.
November 29, 2006 5:08:35 AM

Quote:
Let me give you guys an example...


My old computer was a P4- 3.06Ghz HT (very first hyper threaded one), and 80GB x2 in RAID 0, 512MB RAM. It seemed pretty snappy, loading games, etc...

I was working on a system one time that had an AXP 3000+, 512mb RAM, and an 80GB HD. So it should be fairly similar (the system set up with the exception of the RAID 0, they both had XP PRO).

As I was using this AXP3000+ I noticed it took visibly 2-3 seconds longer to open up the "Start->All programs" than my own system with RAID 0, AND it had LESS programs installed on it.

Anyways, i'm never going back to non-raid. I have been happily using RAID 0 since 2003, and never will turn back.

Currently i'm Running 2X 150GB Raptors in RAID 0, and it screams!
While playing games, i'm usually the first one to load, as an example in Warhammer 40k, I load in under 20 seconds, usually waiting for 1-2 minutes for other people to load :( 

During the whole time i've been using my RAID 0 system not once has it ever failed on me. FYI I have a 500GB secondary drive that stores all of my critical DATA, so i'm not too concerned about RAID corruption (it has never happened so far to me).

FYI, it's good to have a battery back up system, currently I have a UPS ($250 investment to protect my $3600CDN computer) for my computer, because computer's are highly susceptible to power-fluctuations. This could be why my systems have always run solid.

Just thought I would post my little FYI.


What you are seeing here is most likely the effect of a very much reduced seek time. Try a single raptor 150 and see if there's any difference between that and your raid 0. Tell me exactly what you think 150+ mB/s transfer rate means when the files for icons etc on your startmenu probably don't even exceed 1mB in size? If you're the first one to load in WH40k, then it's probably a combination of a faster cpu(which usually goes along with an upgrade to raptors, since people will purchase raptors at the same time they purchase a whole new computer) and faster seek times on the hard drives (which would make a big difference when loading tons of small files that aren't sequentially arranged on the hard drive in the order they are loaded).
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 29, 2006 6:17:46 AM

What it means that...instead of spending 2-3 seconds out of every minute in a 3-6 hour day using computers waiting, i'm able to do thing's faster.

All this time adds up, even if it seems really small in the short run.

Like I said I'm not going to break my RAID 0 set up because I don't want to "just" use a single raptor.

Of course I have a fast CPU, it all helps in the long run. But consider this, a HD is 1000 times slower than the next fastest component in a computer. If I can give the HD an advantage in speed, it will definitely help out with the overall system performance by making the slowest component faster.

Of course the seek time is reduced, it's 10,000RPM vs 7,200. after all. The reduced seek time + read + write speed of the raptors of course affect the loading times. Reduced seek time is directly related to read and write speed, tell me i'm wrong. Not to mention each raptor drive has 16MB of cache, further increasing speed by allowing the information to be read as quickly as possible and stored in the RAM if the computer cannot read the information fast enough.

I guess we could go on forever debating but if you haven't/ don't use RAID 0, i suggest you give it a try before making those kinds of comments.
You might like RAID 0.
November 29, 2006 12:31:35 PM

Quote:
What it means that...instead of spending 2-3 seconds out of every minute in a 3-6 hour day using computers waiting, i'm able to do thing's faster.

All this time adds up, even if it seems really small in the short run.


Ok.... but what did you pay in order to save 1 minute per hour?

Quote:
Like I said I'm not going to break my RAID 0 set up because I don't want to "just" use a single raptor.


That is your choice.
Quote:
Of course I have a fast CPU, it all helps in the long run. But consider this, a HD is 1000 times slower than the next fastest component in a computer. If I can give the HD an advantage in speed, it will definitely help out with the overall system performance by making the slowest component faster.


Overall the system may seem more zippy, but there is more of an effect on load times moving from a 7200RPM drive to a Raptor than there is going from single disks to RAID 0.

Quote:
Of course the seek time is reduced, it's 10,000RPM vs 7,200. after all. The reduced seek time + read + write speed of the raptors of course affect the loading times. Reduced seek time is directly related to read and write speed, tell me i'm wrong.


Ok.

Quote:
Seek time is one of the several delays associated with reading or writing data on a computer's disk drive, and somewhat similar for CD or DVD drives. The others are rotational delay and transfer time. In order to read or write data in a particular place on the disk, the read/write head of the disk needs to be physically moved to the correct place.This process is known as seeking, and the time it takes for the head to move to the right place is the seek time.


Seek time isn't related to read/write speed. The only thing is measures is the latency from moving the read/write head across the disk. Read/Write speed is how quickly can you extract data once the read/write head has gotten to the position it needs to on the disk. So a lower seek time helps in non sequential file loading where files are spread out all over the disk, but it doesn't inherently change the read/write speed of the disk.

Quote:
Not to mention each raptor drive has 16MB of cache, further increasing speed by allowing the information to be read as quickly as possible and stored in the RAM if the computer cannot read the information fast enough.


Check the HDD Charts Out

Cache is important, but more important than that is overall construction. Check out the hard drive charts under read performance, why is it that 7 of the top 10 have 8MB of cache not 16MB? Hard drives are a combination of a lot of factors, but the overall impact of cache isn't as great as you might think. I am going to head you off, before you say but look at the top 2, the old Raptor is 11MB/s slower than the new Raptor. The new raptor was a complete redesign including a native SATA connection instead of a SATA bridge used on the previous two generations of Raptors. Also the areal density has doubled, again providing a solid increase in performance because the smaller distance between the magnetic bits allows more data to be read per unit time as compared to a lower areal density.


Quote:
I guess we could go on forever debating but if you haven't/ don't use RAID 0, i suggest you give it a try before making those kinds of comments. You might like RAID 0.


I have used RAID 0, for almost 2 years on first gen raptors. I wasn't all that impressed. Other than a few synthetic scores I didn't really notice that much difference. Windows did load faster, but first you have to load the RAID BIOS and detect the array so your total load time actually increases. All the data points to CPU's bottlenecking load times in games (which I agree with based on my experience), and I don't do huge file transfers, nor do I page during games, I don't do video editing, so I really have no use for RAID 0.
November 29, 2006 1:36:01 PM

i dont deny that using raid 0 does smooth out system responsiveness... thats not what was in question... ...when youre using two different cpu architectures to do the same thing however, neither of which are even clocked remotely similar (regardless of efficiency), there is automatically going to be a difference, im not emphasizing that clock speed is the be all and end all, we know that... but, taking a 2GHz cpu rated at 3000+, and comparing it to an actual 3GHz cpu w/HT no less, is going to impact performance to a different degree, and motherboard achitectures matter too... im assuming they both had the same memory speed, since you didnt say they were any different, which means your p4 3.06 w/HT was also using ddr400 at best (not ddr2 533 or so), didnt specify whether they had 2*256MB modules to possibly be in dual channel... ...the point being that those 2 compared systems simply arent only a cpu change in difference, or just using raid 0, and a single drive... now, if you were able to install the 3000+ inplace of your 3GHz/HT... that would have been a more worthwhile comparison (but still off)... and even more worthwhile, again, would have simply been to overclock your pentium 4, for the tightest spec'd comparison... instead of a possibly extreme difference between 2 different cpu architectures and systems in general, both of which have their own advantages, doing some things faster than one another... and HT is going to simulate a second cpu core anyhow, which is going to releave the burdon on the cpu as a whole, inevitably resulting in increased productivity... 'eg. multiple threads being able to be processed simultaneously', instead of just one after the other after the other, in sequence... again, the systems being compared were simply not the same, they could have had similarities, as you pointed out, but by no means were they comparable for identical performance, to see how much raid 0 by itself really helped for what you were testing.

but, again, simply overclocking your p4 /w HT wouldve been a more worthwhile comparison to do (as opposed to using the 2GHz cpu as a comparison)... taking it from 3.06GHz, maybe up to 3.8 or around there (or higher), and, then compare the difference.

and, i see you do have an E6600 anyways now... so, you can test exactly what i was saying in my first post, you have 2 cpu cores, and theres a decent amount of multithreaded games out now... when running a multithreaded game, just switch the cpu affinity from both cores, to one core, see if it takes any longer for a game level to load, only having one core available to process the level, and then switch back to have 2 cores enabled (though the efficiency of how well the game was coded for multithreading has an impact too)... or, compare your cpu at stock speed of 2.4, and then run it at 2.8 like youre doing (or higher), see if it affects game loading time at all, that way you dont 'have' to have a multithreaded game on hand to test. i dont think youd want to break up your raid 0 raptor array, so, doing that may be a bit much, just for the sake of testing... so, cpu speed differences and testing with one core, and both core would be easier to do then... now, even if you dont want to do this, or mention if theres any difference, or even be honest about it if there is any difference... its okay either way, but, doing this will allow you to see firsthand, for your own benefit... ...it could very well be (TBH), that the reason youre entering the games as fast as you are, is because of undoubtably how fast your cpu is, compared to theirs, more than likely.

im assuming the game isnt old... ...if it was old however, more than likely there wouldnt need to be much decompressing by the cpu, the cpu would no longer be the bottleneck, and you can just go simply reading data from the hdd, with no processing necessary really, and, raid 0 will benefit there a great deal... thats more than likely not the case however, but just to give the benefit of the doubt, incase the game is rather small, or outdated, and then raid 0 would be in fact giving the benefits we all look to experience when using it, for every game no less.
November 29, 2006 2:41:21 PM

Surely the point that 95%+ of respondents here aren't in the "trade", as you put it, invalidates your point. Most of the people here are home users with little/no mission critical data, and no customers to please. If the drives go tits up, the worst thing they're likely to lose are game save files, password cookies or holiday snaps.

I do quite a bit of video editing, and also regularly move 5GB+ files. I'm not using RAID0 atm, but I will in the next build. If halving the time it takes me to move my files is "trivial", I'd like to see something else which could make such a difference to large file transfers.

I don't have any "clients", so their experiences, and your knowledge of them, doesn't really bother me. I back up any really critical stuff to DVDR, so even if my array went down, I wouldn't lose anything of importance. If that sentiment makes you giggle, it's nice to create a little happiness in the world.

Synergy6
November 29, 2006 3:01:19 PM

Quote:
I do quite a bit of video editing, and also regularly move 5GB+ files. I'm not using RAID0 atm, but I will in the next build. If halving the time it takes me to move my files is "trivial", I'd like to see something else which could make such a difference to large file transfers.


That is one circumstance which I would say RAID 0 really is beneficial. I agree with you. Moving 5GB+ files consistently would really benefit from RAID 0. I would like to make one suggestion, use as large a stripe size as possible when you build your array, probably 1024k.

Side note: RAID is one of the most oversold gimics that mobo manufacturers have sold. I don't deny that RAID has its place, its just a very specific place.

Also home users may not have mission critical data, i agree, no one wants to lose family portraits (esp if they are loved ones who have passed on) or their music collection (talk about hours upon hours of encoding). So it may not be critical in the sense that others depend on the data, but there are some things that you really don't want to lose.
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 29, 2006 4:57:56 PM

"Ok.... but what did you pay in order to save 1 minute per hour? "

So what, sure I paid 3600CDN for my whole setup but that was my choice. It's like someone buying a 17" monitor, vs a 20" monitor, do you really need it? No, but does it help in the long run by being that much better? Yes.

I'm not trying to say your right, or that i'm right, i'm not trying to argue with you. Just saying I made a choice to not use slower components, because "I" can notice a difference in computer speeds. I'm very sensitive to those things because i've used computers since I was 7-8.

"Windows did load faster, but first you have to load the RAID BIOS and detect the array so your total load time actually increases. "

My system boots up normally like any other one with or without RAID. In fact by the time Windows desktop screen appears I can start using everything on my desktop, can you say the same thing? I like that and i'm used to it. If you don't notice a difference, well thats just you.

"i dont deny that using raid 0 does smooth out system responsiveness... thats not what was in question... ...when youre using two different cpu architectures to do the same thing however, neither of which are even clocked remotely similar (regardless of efficiency), there is automatically going to be a difference, im not emphasizing that clock speed is the be all and end all, we know that... but, taking a 2GHz cpu rated at 3000+, and comparing it to an actual 3GHz cpu w/HT no less, is going to impact performance to a different degree, and motherboard achitectures matter too... im assuming they both had the same memory speed, since you didnt say they were any different, which means your p4 3.06 w/HT was also using ddr400 at best (not ddr2 533 or so), didnt specify whether they had 2*256MB modules to possibly be in dual channel... ...the point being that those 2 compared systems simply arent only a cpu change in difference, or just using raid 0, and a single drive... now, if you were able to install the 3000+ inplace of your 3GHz/HT... that would have been a more worthwhile comparison (but still off)... and even more worthwhile, again, would have simply been to overclock your pentium 4, for the tightest spec'd comparison... instead of a possibly extreme difference between 2 different cpu architectures and systems in general, both of which have their own advantages, doing some things faster than one another... and HT is going to simulate a second cpu core anyhow, which is going to releave the burdon on the cpu as a whole, inevitably resulting in increased productivity... 'eg. multiple threads being able to be processed simultaneously', instead of just one after the other after the other, in sequence... again, the systems being compared were simply not the same, they could have had similarities, as you pointed out, but by no means were they comparable for identical performance, to see how much raid 0 by itself really helped for what you were testing. "

My system I had RDRAM PC 1066- 32bit (single 512MB stick, don't tell me I had to have two sticks, because my system used A SINGLE stick, it was 32bit, thats why I could use 1 stick, with 1 continuity module on the other slot) where as the AXP 3000+ had DDR 333Mhz. I know of course the RDRAM had much more bandwidth BUT, the Athlon system had a dedicated controller onboard, which made communicating with the DDR ram MUCH FASTER. My RDRAM, although it had a lot of B/W, it's latency WAS HUGE. I just wanted to point out that even though my system was Hyper Threaded...it was a proven fact that it was only GOOD with Encoding and media files....VS the Athlon's awesome gaming performance due to it's short latency with the RAM, and somewhat efficient architecture.

I wanted to point out that my P4 3.06 was the FIRST Hyper threaded one, and it worked...but it was more of a performance disadvantage then a good one (except for media files of course). The next update of the P4 (3.0GHZ/800mhz FSB) was superior to my original P4 3.06/533mhz FSB system. I also wanted to mention I tried overclocking it the first time I got my system 3 years ago (the P4) and it didn't overclock so well, because it was a NorthWood, and it was one of the newer HT ones (not as good of a process as the Prescott).

The game I play is 2 years old, but still needs a fairly decent system. Warhammer 40k is the game.

Yea...anyways

I RIP quite a few DVD's movies myself. It really does help me to write fast.
Not to mention I work with quite a few large movie files (600MB-3-4GB)

Actually I use a crappy little program called Super DVD Ripper (anyone know of a better DVD ripper?) and I actually have a problem of my DVD drive unable to keep up with the Encoding of the DVD. It will read the DVD for 10-20 seconds, then it will encode and it will pause again to read from the DVD again.


This is a FYI, I don't want to start a war with you guys, I'm just letting you know about MY experiences.
November 29, 2006 5:49:54 PM

These supposed "Uber Geeks" that love to pontificate about the dangers/uselessness of RAID0 all seem to base their points on the premise that we all only have one system.
November 29, 2006 6:15:44 PM

Quote:
Actually I use a crappy little program called Super DVD Ripper (anyone know of a better DVD ripper?)


Maybe DVD Decrypter?
November 29, 2006 6:18:17 PM

...again... ...the reason for this thread... was originally intended to be limited to raid 0 loading times for games... ...not raid 0 for any other purpose... raid 0 has other purposes (such as in video editing), but, a seperate thread should be made for that then, expressing its benefits, and there are quite a few threads about that... ...there is too much fallacy thats gone around, for quite awhile... of people claiming that raid 0 is the way to go when it comes to gaming... when there is nothing concrete to back that up, 'strictly assumption' at best.


example 1...

on a single drive, it takes 10 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it can also take 10 seconds to load a noncompressed 100MB level in a game... no problems, perfectly expected

in a 2 drive raid 0 array, it takes 5 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it can also take 5 seconds to load a noncompressed 100MB level in a game... no problems, perfectly expected.

example 2...

on a single drive, it takes 10 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... thats expected, because the data is compressed, and has to be decompressed before it can be used

in a 2 drive raid 0 array, it takes 5 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... ...having raid 0 does not speed up your cpu at all, your cpu still takes the same amount of time to process and decompress the data so it can be used...


...theyre just simple examples... ...but this is the whole point thats trying to be made... ...when you load a compressed 100MB game level, its certainly not just going to take the same 5 or 10 seconds that it took to copy a 100MB file, from A to B... ...theres certainly more thats having to be done, than just simply read/write a file to/from a hdd... and a lot of that is dependant on the processing capability of your cpu, that usually ends up being the bottleneck when it comes to slow game loading times.
November 29, 2006 6:24:16 PM

Side note: Before I begin, it would be helpful if you learned to use the quote tag, this has nothing to do with your post except making it easier to read. Take it as a helpful tip for future reference. :) 

Quote:
So what, sure I paid 3600CDN for my whole setup but that was my choice. It's like someone buying a 17" monitor, vs a 20" monitor, do you really need it? No, but does it help in the long run by being that much better? Yes.

I'm not trying to say your right, or that i'm right, i'm not trying to argue with you. Just saying I made a choice to not use slower components, because "I" can notice a difference in computer speeds. I'm very sensitive to those things because i've used computers since I was 7-8.


I know you aren't trying to argue. You are right, spending that much money is a choice left ultimately up to the customer and I will never argue someones personal choice. I only deal with the information, once you have it what you do with it is your choice, make no mistake about that.

I've been using computer since I could since in my dad's lap. Ok, I was using a Mac, but this was back in the mid 80's.

Quote:
My system boots up normally like any other one with or without RAID. In fact by the time Windows desktop screen appears I can start using everything on my desktop, can you say the same thing? I like that and i'm used to it. If you don't notice a difference, well thats just you.


Actually, yes I can. I have my computer very well configured, nothing boots up that isn't absolutely necessary, so on boot I only have 3 or 4 programs actually booting. The only thing I have to wait on is my network card obtaining an IP from my router's DHCP server, not too shabby.

Quote:
My system I had RDRAM PC 1066- 32bit (single 512MB stick, don't tell me I had to have two sticks, because my system used A SINGLE stick, it was 32bit, thats why I could use 1 stick, with 1 continuity module on the other slot) where as the AXP 3000+ had DDR 333Mhz. I know of course the RDRAM had much more bandwidth BUT, the Athlon system had a dedicated controller onboard, which made communicating with the DDR ram MUCH FASTER. My RDRAM, although it had a lot of B/W, it's latency WAS HUGE. I just wanted to point out that even though my system was Hyper Threaded...it was a proven fact that it was only GOOD with Encoding and media files....VS the Athlon's awesome gaming performance due to it's short latency with the RAM, and somewhat efficient architecture.


I am going to side step that because honestly, I don't know jack about RDRAM. All I know is it was too expensive and didn't compare well against DDR RAM which is why Intel dropped it after their licensing agreements was up with RAMBUS.

Quote:
I wanted to point out that my P4 3.06 was the FIRST Hyper threaded one, and it worked...but it was more of a performance disadvantage then a good one (except for media files of course). The next update of the P4 (3.0GHZ/800mhz FSB) was superior to my original P4 3.06/533mhz FSB system. I also wanted to mention I tried overclocking it the first time I got my system 3 years ago (the P4) and it didn't overclock so well, because it was a NorthWood, and it was one of the newer HT ones (not as good of a process as the Prescott).


Yeah, Northwood's generally don't overclock well. The main problem, as I recall, was the motherboards vCore dropping under load which caused instability and to counter that you had to solder on a resistor to the inside of the 478 socket. I had a P4C 3.0 myself. err.... still have it but it doesn't do much but sit there now.

Quote:
These supposed "Uber Geeks" that love to pontificate about the dangers/uselessness of RAID0 all seem to base their points on the premise that we all only have one system.


Well of course. It is faulty to assume that most people have multiple computers. There is always a way to mitigate the dangers of technologies such as RAID, but if we always assume that then people with only 2 hard drives and no backup, or only 1 system, get lulled into a false sense of security. Not everybody who reads these forums for information posts, so one must be very precise in order to prevent confusion.
November 29, 2006 6:27:26 PM

I agree.

Use your fancy search button[other people]... this argument has gone on forever and there are at least a dozen good threads to read on it.

For all you lazy people: Here

Not you choirbass :) 
November 29, 2006 6:43:15 PM

lol, okay :) 
November 29, 2006 7:31:44 PM

I'm happy with my single 74GB Raptor.

If you think about it, as many people on here claim they have uber-leet RAID setups, they still make up a small percentage of gamers.

Most gamers are the casual kind who buy the average $1500 Dell machines with maybe a midrange non-C2D CPU and a single hard drive, most likely IDE as opposed to SATA. So, even a current SATA drive and an AMD64 X2 is an improvement over what the majority of players have.

So if someone feels the need to extend that lead with a multi-Raptor RAID setup, whether for work or for pleasure, go right ahead. If you've got the money to burn, fire away.

I probably wouldn't use RAID 0 because my life is on my machine, I have schoolwork. Gaming takes up enough of my study time, I can't afford to take the risk (however small or large) of having a drive fail, then spending the time to reinstall everything. How much time would be wasted then?

It's easy to get DiskSnapshot and a BartPE builder as a free way to re-image a hard drive. I doubt it works on RAID arrays because when I did have to re-image the drive due to a bootloader failure, I didn't see an option for LVM or RAID re-imaging.
November 29, 2006 7:59:48 PM

yeah, theres no problem with wanting to improve your machine with raid 0, if youve got the time, money, arent at risk of permanently losing data, and knowing it may only provide a very small improvement over what you already have in some cases, just all that... ...its just when people go spreading misinformation, about what it actually can do... and then someone invests money in that misinformation having believed it, when they could have invested it better elsewhere... but, as long as people are aware of the pros and cons to having it, and not misinformation, its okay then :) 
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 29, 2006 8:08:16 PM

Ok let's agree to disagree...no matter how ****** up your view may be lol!

JK I remember seeing that somewhere, just felt like putting that in.

Anyways. I like my RAID 0 set up. Games load very quickly, and doing searches on my RAID 0 is great. Not to mention defragging my hd, and to a lesser extent virus scans.

Thanks for all the replies though, it was interesting to see what you guys thought.

I've done enough reading, I already know lots, so I don't need to see more threads :) . I do work as an Informatics technician for the government, after all (desktop repairs, mainly, so I know a thing or two ;-).

P.S.: I did have the money to burn, I bought my current system of August of this year, and the last system I got was back in January of 2003. 3 years of using the same system...I had enough of the Socket 478 Northwood and my non-upgradeable RDRAM (which I couldn't find, even if I could it cost 1$ a megabyte....OUCH)! Not to mention a total of 240 GB across 3 80GB HD's was not enough for games, movies, and pictures. So i've been putting money away to buy a good system for myself that will be upgradeable.

At least I bought something useful....instead of something like the KILLER NIC- LAWL!

This was my birthday present to myself when I built it in August. Of course I will splurge every once in a while, so sue me!

H
A
N
D

:) 
November 29, 2006 8:29:00 PM

Quote:
At least I bought something useful....instead of something like the KILLER NIC- LAWL!

This was my birthday present to myself when I built it in August. Of course I will splurge every once in a while, so sue me!

H
A
N
D

:) 


I shall sue you for your system :wink:
November 30, 2006 2:21:14 AM

Quote:

1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:
[/b]

Wait, so I need 4gb of ram to play oblivion? Maybe that's why it brings everyone's computers to a screeching halt! And I can't use more than 2 drives in raid-0? Well damn! I guess all those people with 4 raptors in raid-0 must be idiots!/sarcasm

Most of the data is compressed to save space, and thus requires time for your cpu to uncompress it and store it in ram. Close that mouth

I think it's not compressed, because 4GB it's the disk size. 8O
November 30, 2006 2:42:27 AM

Quote:

All the data points to CPU's bottlenecking load times in games (which I agree with based on my experience), and I don't do huge file transfers, nor do I page during games, I don't do video editing, so I really have no use for RAID 0.


I think I have readed somewhere that all Windows load to ram also is written to disk(pagefile) for security.
Someone knows something about this. :?: :? :?:
November 30, 2006 3:04:32 AM

Quote:

example 2...

on a single drive, it takes 10 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... thats expected, because the data is compressed, and has to be decompressed before it can be used

in a 2 drive raid 0 array, it takes 5 seconds to copy a 100MB file from point A on a hard drive, to point B on a hard drive... and it takes 25 seconds to load a compressed 100MB level in a game... ...having raid 0 does not speed up your cpu at all, your cpu still takes the same amount of time to process and decompress the data so it can be used...


...theyre just simple examples... ...but this is the whole point thats trying to be made... ...when you load a compressed 100MB game level, its certainly not just going to take the same 5 or 10 seconds that it took to copy a 100MB file, from A to B... ...theres certainly more thats having to be done, than just simply read/write a file to/from a hdd... and a lot of that is dependant on the processing capability of your cpu, that usually ends up being the bottleneck when it comes to slow game loading times.


As you have said, if it takes 25 secs instead 5 secs to load a compressed file it's because your cpu it's too slow. But the 100mb file still have to be loaded to ram to be decompressed. So 5 secs to load, 20 to decompress. :wink: 8) :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :o 
November 30, 2006 3:31:21 AM

Quote:

1.RAID 0 and 1 can only be done with "2" disks, not three or more, so you don't see difference because maybe you didn't do a RAID 0.
2. If you have 3 or more disks, you can do a raid 5, it's not that speedy, but you can have security and more speed at the same time.
3.You should HALF the loading time speed with raid 0. Example: Oblivion in the Data directory have almost 4GB of data in only 6 files!. 8O
Compressed or uncompressed it's still 4 GB the game should load. :roll:
[/b]

Wait, so I need 4gb of ram to play oblivion? Maybe that's why it brings everyone's computers to a screeching halt! And I can't use more than 2 drives in raid-0? Well damn! I guess all those people with 4 raptors in raid-0 must be idiots!/sarcasm

Most of the data is compressed to save space, and thus requires time for your cpu to uncompress it and store it in ram. Close that mouth

I think it's not compressed, because 4GB it's the disk size. 8O

The data is still compressed on the hard drive, if it weren't I would expect games to be double the size they are now. If the data were not compressed then by definition shouldn't it go straight from the HDD to the RAM? If that is true, shouldn't loading take the exact time that it takes to transfer the data from the HDD to the RAM. Therefore, if we were to load a 1GB level, it should take (1024MB/50MB/s (avg read on most 7200rpm disks) which is about ~20 seconds and then under RAID 0 it should only take ~10 seconds.... hmmm I don't think so. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite it.
November 30, 2006 3:38:28 AM

First of all, good post.

Second of all, this thread is another reminder to the rational people why it is pointless to try and use common sense and empirically supported arguments (at least on these forums, or most forums in general) to try to convince most home users they don't need RAID 0.

I have posted on the subject time and time again only to be told that "and I saw a great improvement once I upgraded my system and went to RAID 0." I think the marketing hype really does drive most "enthusiasts."

Sidenote: for all you who want to make comparisons, please do it this way: run a system with a single drive, then run the same system with two identical drives, both of which are identical to the drive in the first run. That should be the only basis for the comparison, as it will keep all other things equal.

The conclusion is simple, and it's been laid out for you time and time again: most home users, including "enthusiasts," do not benefit from a RAID 0 setup enough to justify the increased cost and greatly reduced reliability (1/n that of a single drive set-up, where n is the number of drives in the array. And yeah, n can be more than 2 for the ill informed).
Unless, you do a lot of tasks that require sequential transfers of large quantities of data, such as media editing, serving, etc.

Somehow, though, people can not read the paragraph above completely, and all these posts are fruitless. Sorry, I am quite cynical on this point by now. But I support you in your fight for better informed masses.
November 30, 2006 3:38:30 AM

Quote:
Actually I use a crappy little program called Super DVD Ripper (anyone know of a better DVD ripper?)


Maybe DVD Decrypter?

Second that. 8)
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 30, 2006 3:15:08 PM

Quote:
First of all, good post.

Second of all, this thread is another reminder to the rational people why it is pointless to try and use common sense and empirically supported arguments (at least on these forums, or most forums in general) to try to convince most home users they don't need RAID 0.

I have posted on the subject time and time again only to be told that "and I saw a great improvement once I upgraded my system and went to RAID 0." I think the marketing hype really does drive most "enthusiasts."

Sidenote: for all you who want to make comparisons, please do it this way: run a system with a single drive, then run the same system with two identical drives, both of which are identical to the drive in the first run. That should be the only basis for the comparison, as it will keep all other things equal.

The conclusion is simple, and it's been laid out for you time and time again: most home users, including "enthusiasts," do not benefit from a RAID 0 setup enough to justify the increased cost and greatly reduced reliability (1/n that of a single drive set-up, where n is the number of drives in the array. And yeah, n can be more than 2 for the ill informed).
Unless, you do a lot of tasks that require sequential transfers of large quantities of data, such as media editing, serving, etc.

Somehow, though, people can not read the paragraph above completely, and all these posts are fruitless. Sorry, I am quite cynical on this point by now. But I support you in your fight for better informed masses.


Well, i'm not going to argue. I'm just going to say that i'm not a "regular" user. I mega task. Whenever I play a game, I usually have Firefox open, Messenger, a downloading program, Itunes/and or Media player, and a ripping program open. No regular user would/could do what I do on a regular basis, and therefore wouldn't require the power I need to do what I do. Laptop's are good for the masses ;) . Yes Alt+Tab is my close friend! LOL.

If you don't like RAID, don't use it. If you do like RAID, can afford it, and like what it can/does do, all the more power to you. I am happy with my setup :) 

Quote:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: Re: raid 0 game loading times
randomcow wrote:
Quote:
Actually I use a crappy little program called Super DVD Ripper (anyone know of a better DVD ripper?)


Maybe DVD Decrypter?


Second that. Cool


Thanks guys, I will try this out probably this weekend!
November 30, 2006 3:41:48 PM

Well I do a lot of video editing, so I use RAID0.... I notice a difference when scrubbing through the timeline. I also work with LARGE photoshop files... Also notice a difference vs. non-raid. One thing that helps a lot is running defrag every couple of days to stop those file fragments getting out of control. Have done it and always will, and my files are open in a jiffy! :D 
November 30, 2006 3:45:02 PM

oh, most definetly :) , no doubts about image editing performance with raid 0

its just the other claims of unfounded raid 0 performance for gaming that were being addressed
a c 131 à CPUs
a c 153 G Storage
November 30, 2006 3:46:15 PM

Just gonna toss in my 2 cents here....

RAID0 IS faster for loading games.... why? hmmmm lets see now my Athlon64(with half the ram worse timings and a X850XT) 3200 owned my core 2 in load times...y? RAID 0

Once i got my raid 0 back on here....bang....i win :) 

I am going to say it depends on the game....guild wars uses bandwidth up the ying yang to load maps....its all in like one big ass file...raid helps that....COH/COV while not in a big file also loads faster.... Wolf ET.... well lets just say i don't see the load screens for some maps...Half Life 2.... faster....

I am not saying you are gonna half your load times....as there will always be a bottleneck somewhere.....but it sure is faster....and for recording high bit rate video....it sure is nice to have...

To sum it up RAID0 is your friend.....

and IGN....well there dumb asses....after all go back to the review for castlevania for n64....ohhhh booohoooo the blurry textures......then zelda....ohhh clear textures....there the same damn game engine and texture level.....They are one of the most biased places around....they never even play the games they review to the end....
yes they have sources....but try a few more games....
November 30, 2006 4:00:56 PM

okay... then you can honestly tell me, that having 4 raptors in raid 0 is going to nearly cut my game loading time down to 1/4 then, of a single raptor?? or down from 1 minute to load a level on a single raptor, down to only ~15 seconds?

now... do you think youre honestly being realistic then, if you think thats close to being remotely true in most cases? (when it comes to game level loading)
November 30, 2006 4:12:40 PM

How many sources do we have to provide for you to open up you mind for 1 second to realize that RAID 0 doesn't help load times?

Oh and BTW that wasn't IGN's doing, that actual source of that information is Maximum PC Magazine....Another link, Anandtech
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 30, 2006 5:24:45 PM

Quote:
How many sources do we have to provide for you to open up you mind for 1 second to realize that RAID 0 doesn't help load times?


Ok now your posting BS. You want proof? Here are some threads.

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?p=...

http://forum.oscr.arizona.edu/archive/index.php/t-2589....

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=f8dac480986fb...

These guys DID notice a difference in GAME LOADING TIMES, some even noticed the cut was almost half the time!

from the last link I liked the following:
Quote:

While it might not be cost effective, there are still applications for it. There's always diminishing returns, and performance doesn't always scale linearly with investment.


Yup, I don't mind for paying for that "extra bit" of speed. If it saves me hours/days in a year, w00t!

SuperFly03, why do you hate RAID 0 so much? Just because you don't like it and YOU think it's no good, doesn't mean the rest of us don't like it. I like it, I like my games loading that much faster, I like my windows being able to be used as soon as the desktop appears, I like the encoding speed. I like I like!

To really get the most performance out of a RAID 0 system, you would need a dedicated RAID Controller on your PCI-EXPRESS lane to handle all the I/O transactions.

I think someone should lock this thread :p  it's starting to get out of hand.

Here's the end all be all answer:

If you're a "regular home user, who surfes the net, does gaming, and doesn't encode movies, RAID 0 (maybe RAID 1) is not for you"

If you're a "power user, who constantly mega/multi-tasks, hate's waiting for games to load/ windows to load, encodes movies/music and does large file transfers, RAID 0 COULD BE for you!"

So yes, IN FACT RAID 0 DOES help loading times, but you have to be willing to put the INVESTMENT into it. Sure I could have spent less $$ on my RAID 0 Raptors, and put in a newer/better video card or something else, but I would rather have an all-around great system. All your other components have to be up to spec also, so you don't just have one weak point.
November 30, 2006 5:50:14 PM

*sigh*... can you find a credible review though, indicating performance by numbers? not just other seemingly identical threads to this one... because people in those threads are saying practically the same things.

and okay, because numbers seemingly cant be provided... ill give the benefit of the doubt of a 1-2 second improvement, from a 20 second total load time... ..there, you have your 1 second improvement, as a result of having raid 0... and 19 seconds left unaccounted for, that raid 0 wasnt able to assist in helping with.

although those numbers are made up, theyre still along the lines of being fairly accurate, within a second or two, of real performance

but, again, if that marginal benefit is worthwhile enough to invest in raid 0, for your games, then by all means.
November 30, 2006 6:16:52 PM

Quote:
How many sources do we have to provide for you to open up you mind for 1 second to realize that RAID 0 doesn't help load times?


Ok now your posting BS. You want proof? Here are some threads.

Here we go again. I have said "game load times" so many times i figured it was implied. I am not discussing file access, or windows load times.



Great find... wait there are no benchmarks only perceptions of humans and descriptions of the technology.



That is dealing with synthetic benchmarks and HDTach... and referring to Windows load times, again that isn't my point. Gaming load times are my point.

Quote:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=f8dac480986fb...

These guys DID notice a difference in GAME LOADING TIMES, some even noticed the cut was almost half the time!

from the last link I liked the following:

While it might not be cost effective, there are still applications for it. There's always diminishing returns, and performance doesn't always scale linearly with investment.


Where anywhere in that thread did they talk game loading performance?

I've said many times before there are instances where RAID 0 is great, but not for loading games. If you page alot during game play that is one thing, loading games is another, loading windows is yet another point, and file transfers are yet still another separate point.

Quote:
Yup, I don't mind for paying for that "extra bit" of speed. If it saves me hours/days in a year, w00t!


Fine, I never said you shouldn't, but rather you shouldn't buy it for the intention of speeding up you game load times.

Quote:
SuperFly03, why do you hate RAID 0 so much? Just because you don't like it and YOU think it's no good, doesn't mean the rest of us don't like it. I like it, I like my games loading that much faster, I like my windows being able to be used as soon as the desktop appears, I like the encoding speed. I like I like!


And I like independently verifiable information which you have yet to give on game loading performance. I am not contesting windows load time (once you have detected the array and actually begin loading) or file access speed.

Quote:
To really get the most performance out of a RAID 0 system, you would need a dedicated RAID Controller on your PCI-EXPRESS lane to handle all the I/O transactions.


There is a dedicated controller, I believe you are talking about a dedicated partiy calulator, which is only necessary for RAID 5/6. In RAID 0/1 the controller just issues two write/read commands instead of the normal one.

Quote:
I think someone should lock this thread :p  it's starting to get out of hand.


Only if you can't control yourself.

Quote:
Here's the end all be all answer:

If you're a "regular home user, who surfes the net, does gaming, and doesn't encode movies, RAID 0 (maybe RAID 1) is not for you"

If you're a "power user, who constantly mega/multi-tasks, hate's waiting for games to load/ windows to load, encodes movies/music and does large file transfers, RAID 0 COULD BE for you!"

So yes, IN FACT RAID 0 DOES help loading times, but you have to be willing to put the INVESTMENT into it. Sure I could have spent less $$ on my RAID 0 Raptors, and put in a newer/better video card or something else, but I would rather have an all-around great system. All your other components have to be up to spec also, so you don't just have one weak point.


There is always a weak point, there is always a bottleneck. The only difference is where it is. Computers constantly get faster, so the bottleneck is always moving.
a b à CPUs
a b G Storage
November 30, 2006 7:08:12 PM

Wow supafly. I give up on you man.

I'll let you think you're right :) 
November 30, 2006 7:13:03 PM

Quote:
Wow supafly. I give up on you man.

I'll let you think you're right :) 


It's called professional skepticism. I have data from a variety of sources to back me up, what do you have? If you have data showing that games load faster, I will keep an open mind, but thus far you haven't provided much, if any evidence to the contrary of my independent 3rd party data.
!