Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SATA 300/MBs 6HDD RAID ??

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 10, 2006 5:46:32 AM

Im wondering if any one has had any experience in this type of set up.
6 7200RPM Hdds in raid 0(striping)
What is the actual output ? Im just wondering cause im about to build a new gaming PC And we have all these MBs with 6 SATA2 ports. Any information would be appreciated thanks !

More about : sata 300 mbs 6hdd raid

a b G Storage
December 10, 2006 5:52:56 AM

I have a couple of Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB drives in RAID 0, and I must say the loading times on the games I have installed to it are much better. Putting all available SATA hard drives in RAID 0 isn't a great idea, because then you would have to have a floppy disk with the mobo RAID driver on it in order to install XP (or Vista if you eventually get it), unless you have a PATA drive installed as well to hold the OS.

What I would do is this:

1 HD for the OS
1 HD to hold the install files of everything you want backed up
RAID 0 every other drive for performance.

The reason I suggest this method, is because the more drives you put into a RAID 0 array, the more likely you are to have one of them fail, and in RAID 0 when one drive fails, you lose all of the data across all drives in the array.
December 10, 2006 5:57:57 AM

Thanks for the Quick reply, Yea i agree with you about having one of them fail. So the other idea i was thinking. The motherboard im buying has raid 5 on it and was probally gonna use that instead but im just trying to get and idea of the actual output on this type of setup before i go ahead and drop a bit of money on 6 drives. THe other problem why i couldn't use the setup you suggested is because one of the games i play has to be installed on the root hard drive for some reason.. lazy programmers ! =P
Related resources
December 10, 2006 6:28:19 AM

For what reason are you getting 6 hds? If it is for pure gaming performance, then that is WAY past the point of diminishing return. A 6hd Raid 0 would give spectacular performance, but with ALL applications (besides benchmarks) designed to do as little hard drive access as possible, you would notice less and less the difference.

If you have some more substantial reason to go for such a large array, more power to ya, but if you are worried about cost, (I never thought I'd say this in this context) just buy two Raptors and save some dough. That's as fast as you're gonna get on an enthusiast-level system and you'll have a pair of raptors.

A 6hd setup would be best suited for a server machine, imo, and in raid5 at that (data security and all). But if you have the money to blow, and don't mind doing plenty of maintaining go for it. You'll have the fastest hard disk setup on the block.

Quick question: what game can't you install to a non-root directory? Sounds a bit odd to me...
December 10, 2006 6:44:45 AM

The game is everquest 2 wont let me no matter how much i try. I wasn't for sure if i was going to do the whole 6 hdd thing i just wondering about the actual out speed diffrence from going to 2-3 range to 4-6 it might have been my old set up but it seemed to me like this game tore the hell out of my older segate sata 150 160gb drives in raid 0. Im planning on having about 2gigs of memory this time so maybe it won't be as much of a problem as it was before. im hoping at least
December 10, 2006 6:05:41 PM

More memory will definitely do the trick. I wonder how much memory you are coming from on your old rig? If it was around 1 gig, you'll definitely see a lot less hd activity, except in the places where its needed, such as going in/out of an area, but in places where it caches every place around you (don't know if everquest does that, some games do, some don't) you'll definitely see less "loading" and more playing.

If you're lookin' at spending that kind of money on a system, you may want to even spring for 4 gigs of ram and then Vista x64 when it comes out, while still only raid-ing two drives together. Problem is, its difficult (impossible?) for XP to handle more than 3 gigs of memory without serious hacks. You also lose dual-channel support, unless of course you buy two 2 gig sticks.

Its up to you, that was just my thought on that. BTW, what's some of the specs you're looking at for your new system?
a b G Storage
December 10, 2006 6:22:54 PM

Actually you can retain dual channel operation with 4 x 1GB sticks. The only difference between 2 x 2GB and 4 x 1GB is a 2T command rate (1T with 2 x 2GB), but that only hurts in benchmarks... not in actual performance. 32bit XP can see 4GB of ram, it just uses the last 512MB very inefficiently.
December 10, 2006 7:02:51 PM

The first I didn't know, and the second I wasn't sure of. Thanks for the info!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
December 10, 2006 7:33:34 PM

For myself I think the OS is one of the 'program' that benefit the most from RAID0, worth the floppy hassle IMO.

i don't suggest RAID0 for anything over 2 drives but that's just me!
December 10, 2006 10:04:46 PM

Thanks for everyones insight on this subject helped me out alot

The new machin will most likely be
Mother Board ABIT Fatal1ty AN9 MB LINK
CPU AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ CPU LINK
Mem mushkin 2GB (2 x 1GB) Mem LINK
Video Card x2 if i can afford it =) GeForce 7950GT 512MB Video Card LINK

As far as hard drives go, Im still not sure at least 2-3 SATA 300/mbs Any suggestion on better setups is appreciated thanks again for all the help already guys!
!