RAID 0 to single drive = suck

[jitpublisher]

I just had a drive in my RAID 0 array start to make some clicking noises, so after all the debating here lately about the positive or negative effects of RAID 0, I decided to go get a 320 gig Seagate drive and install it in place of my RAID 0 setup.

I used Acronis True Home image to copy my RAID array over to the new Seagate drive. No problem, worked perfectly. Fast. Easy. Great software.

Anyway, after several hours of use, anyone who says that a RAID 0 setup on a desktop is not worth it is an idiot.

LET ME REPEAT THAT STATEMENT. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT USING A RAID 0 ARRAY FOR A DESKTOP IS NOT WORTH IT IS A COMPLETE IDIOT. If you debate this fact, you don't what the hell you are talking about. Period.

After using the new drive for several hours, I am now going out to buy 2 150gig raptors and setting them up in a RAID 0 array. I want that performance back that I lost when I changed back to a single drive.

 

[copenhagenlc]

CLAPS! i love my raid 0. You could always do a 0+1 for the same cost of 2 raptors

 

[Synergy6]

Anyway, after several hours of use, anyone who says that a RAID 0 setup on a desktop is not worth it is an idiot.

LET ME REPEAT THAT STATEMENT. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT USING A RAID 0 ARRAY FOR A DESKTOP IS NOT WORTH IT IS A COMPLETE IDIOT. If you debate this fact, you don't what the hell you are talking about. Period.

Based on the "several hours" experience of one guy? Okies.

 

[jitpublisher]

Anyway, after several hours of use, anyone who says that a RAID 0 setup on a desktop is not worth it is an idiot.

LET ME REPEAT THAT STATEMENT. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT USING A RAID 0 ARRAY FOR A DESKTOP IS NOT WORTH IT IS A COMPLETE IDIOT. If you debate this fact, you don't what the hell you are talking about. Period.

Based on the "several hours" experience of one guy? Okies.

Yes, exactly. If you just installed a new video card and your frames dropped 35%, how long would it take you to notice? Don't even start with me. I have listened to people's advice exactly like you, and your advice was not worth a plug nickel.

 

[RichPLS]

Couldn't agree more with ya! Even better is to have 2 multiple arrays of RAID0, one for OS, one for swap, then a single drive for data/docs and stuff, and finally a 500GB backup drive with scheduled backups!!!

So, yeah, going back to a single drive would SUCK!

 

[jitpublisher]

Couldn't agree more with ya! Even better is to have 2 multiple arrays of RAID0, one for OS, one for swap, then a single drive for data/docs and stuff, and finally a 500GB backup drive with scheduled backups!!!

So, yeah, going back to a single drive would SUCK!

You know, I have read these forums for a long, long time. Even before I was a registered user, way before they even had a forum. I have used the advice here over and over again to build PC's with better than ever expected results. But this deal about RAID 0 not being better than a single drive I had my doubts. So I thought, what the heck, I'll spend a little cash and see if my thoughts about RAID 0 were unfounded. I have to say I am not impressed by the single drive I have now after running a RAID 0 setup. Back to RAID 0 for me, and I am going to do it with Raptors this time.

 

[Bosaka]

I agree with the OP anyone who says RAID 0 is worthless for a desktop can kiss my 670MB+ HDTach burst rate in the ass!

 

[Synergy6]

Based on the "several hours" experience of one guy? Okies.

Yes, exactly. If you just installed a new video card and your frames dropped 35%, how long would it take you to notice? Don't even start with me. I have listened to people's advice exactly like you, and your advice was not worth a plug nickel.

If anyone advocates changing graphics card on the basis of a changed FPS in the first game they open... good luck to them. If anyone advocates changing their hard-drive(s) on the basis of "several hours" after a change... good luck to them.

Personally, I take a slightly longer-term view of hardware evaluation and upgrading. Like, waiting a day or two. I'm cripplingly slow with these things

 

[jitpublisher]

Normally, I would agree that first impressions may be a little too judgemental. But really, my old RAID setup was much faster, and it did not take much time at all to notice.

 

[nukemaster]

The same thing i noticed when i first setup my core2 system....went back to raid within 2 days.

now to sit and wait for the flames.

@RichPLS
Whats software do you use for backup? Does it backup just changed files to increase speed?

 

[RichPLS]

I use Second Copy 7, and it backs up manually or automatically folders you select, even to/from network drives.
I really dig it... been using it for almost 3 years...

 

[nukemaster]

And how is it for new files? I mean does it reback-up everything or will it just backup new and changed files?

EDIT---
sorry for the hijack

EDIT EDIT
sorry

Second Copy® is the perfect backup product designed for Windows 9x/Me/NT4/2000/XP/2003 you have been looking for. It makes a backup of your data files to another directory, disk or computer across the network. It then monitors the source files and keeps the backup updated with new or changed files. It runs in the background with no user interaction. So, once it is set up you always have a backup of your data somewhere else.

Sweet

 

[RichPLS]

You can configure it either way, I set mine to only bu changed files, which it replaces the changed onses in the bu drive, while any changed bu file you can set to have from 0 to unlimited copies made and is settable per folder setting... you might want more bu versions of docs, for ex than of your email or some other varient.

 

[Zorg]

I agree with the OP anyone who says RAID 0 is worthless for a desktop can kiss my 670MB+ HDTach burst rate in the ass!

I'm trying to figure this out. I have a Raptor 74Gig. I get a maximum transfer rate of about 78MB/sec. I thought that RAID0 would give less than double the throughput and yet you are getting 667MB/sec. Additionally, the interface is SATA 150, which has a maximum bandwidth of approximately 150MB/sec. So how in the hell are you getting 8.55 times my throughput and over double the theoretical maximum throughput. Is it FM? (f...ing Magic)

 

[440bx]

I agree with the OP anyone who says RAID 0 is worthless for a desktop can kiss my 670MB+ HDTach burst rate in the ass!

A little common sense indicates that a 670MB burst rate is totally meaningless.

The measured interface speed of a raptor is in the vicinity of 189MB/sec. Even if RAID 0 scaled in perfect linear fashion, that would yield 378MB/s, which is quite far from 670MB.

A decently configured RAID 0 will obviously exceed the performance of a single drive (using the same drives in both cases, of course) but, it will not provide an increase in performance near what 670MB/s implies, burst rate or otherwise.

I don't mean to pick on your numbers but I don't want other people to be grossly misled by a number which has little meaning and, in this case, very likely to be incorrect.

HTH.

 

[Zorg]

The measured interface speed of a raptor is in the vicinity of 189MB/sec.

I don't know where you got that number from. As per the link below the max interface bandwidth is 125.4 MB/sec and max transfer rates are 86MB/sec. So, if you recalculate then the numbers he was quoting become even more ridiculous. I have a car that goes 500 miles an hour.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/12/cheap_raid_ravages_wd_raptor/page8.html#read_transfer_rates

Edit: the link also has a maximum read of 173.7MB/sec for Raptors in RAID0. Case closed. People should understand that when they make outlandish claims that they look like idiots.

 

[No1sFanboy]

I'm on my second computer with raid 0 and the OP is right to try and debunk this huge myth that raid 0 does not have much benefit. You can add a 1000 mhz overclock to your core 2 and tune your memory to it's best timings all you want but if you don't go after hard drive performance you have not addressed the biggest bottleneck in any new system. Do your backups and the risk is a non factor.

With raid 0 everything you do will generally feel faster but if you game level loads are much faster. Anyone who has ever played BF2 knows which players used raid 0. During my bf2 phase, raid 0 and enough system memory always guaranteed I would get to "my" jet first.

Have fun with your 2 raptors JIT publisher. I am watching the progress of SSD's and dreaming of a future with solid state access times combined with raid 0. I'm imagining four 32-64 gig ssd's in raid 0. When I can do that for about $250 a drive I'm in.

 

[pat]

You can configure it either way, I set mine to only bu changed files, which it replaces the changed onses in the bu drive, while any changed bu file you can set to have from 0 to unlimited copies made and is settable per folder setting... you might want more bu versions of docs, for ex than of your email or some other varient.

Hi Rich!

long time no see!! I upgraded to the A8R32 for my X2... and a PCI-e RAID card. That system fly now... I got a cheap 3200+ to put on my a8r-mvp and make it a nice backup system..

Back to the topic, I was using second copy too, synchronizing only folder really needed instead of a whole drive. I have RAID0 since 2001, and never one file lost.

It is true that RAID0 performance worth it. Even over a single Raptor. With files becomming bigger and bigger, storage and speed that RAID0 allow simply make a difference. With the help of a synchronizing app, like second copy, and the low price of hdd now, this ad the safety of a backup.

 

[_path_finder]

LET ME REPEAT THAT STATEMENT. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT USING A RAID 0 ARRAY FOR A DESKTOP IS NOT WORTH IT IS A COMPLETE IDIOT. .

Indisputable statement....

 

[petevsdrm]

I can certainly see a huge increase in performance when I use a couple of drives in RAID0. I have seen several threads around here where people insist that RAIDing your hard drives will not increase performance.

I knew it would turn to this sooner or later...

You can use AID0, but I don't suggest it for a gaming machine. First, there is little REAL WORLD benefit to using AID0 on the desktop. Second, I do not suggest using an AID0 array as your OS drive, as WHEN the array fails, you'll have to reinstall EVERYTHING. This is why I said your best buy is a fast, SINGLE drive. If you have the $$$, get a Raptor and ignore AID0. Because these drives are so small, get a larger harddrive for storage. This will give you speed if you need it, and the space to store things.

Also people claim it is soooo unstable, but I have run 2 74 gig raptors in a RAID0 for 3 years and never had 1 problem. In my new build I use 2 seagate 7200.10 in a RAID0 and again, no problems at all. The thing that they always point out is that "if you raid two drives, only one has to fail and you lose your data". Well newsflash, if you put all of your data on one drive, and one drive fails, you lose your data. :roll:

I even saw someone say that it would lower your performance.

It's the darn article Tom's wrote. AID0 (am I one of the few here that will realize that that ISN'T a typo?) is not going to do much for gaming at all. In some cases it will increase load times. I use a 74GB raptor for my OS and whatever game I'm playing at the moment, and I use the WD AAJS series in RAID1 series for storage.

Am I the only one who thinks that Tom' Hardware reviews carry a bit more weight than this guys subjective, unfounded opinion?

In short, I have used RAID0 for years and never lost so much as 1 file, I see an obvious, large performance increase over one drive in load times and large file transfers, and I will continue to use RAID0 regardless of the ridiculous opinions of the few.

 

[Synergy6]

a) Have you considered seek times? Important in certain activities, and RAID 0 slows them.
b) RAID 0 *is* more likely to destroy data, whether you like it or not. It can be avoided by backing up, but the statistical proof is there.

Example : You have two drives, each have a probability of 1/1000 of failing in a certain period. The probably of either failing in that time? (and so, with RAID0, wiping all your data) is 1/500 (ceteris paribus, obviously). Sure, 1/500 isn't high, but it's still more likely than with one drive.

 

[440bx]

I don't know where you got that number from.

from here http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html - Interface Performance.

In that chart you will see some drives with an ATA133 interface sporting interface performance numbers of 189.5 MB/s. However, I did make a mistake, the Raptors do not reach that level. A "lowly" Hitachi Deskstar T7K500 ATA133 does.

I picked the interface benchmark because it is the benchmark that yields the highest measured MB/s. Essentially I gave him the benefit of using the number that would most likely support the grossly exaggerated 670MB/s and showed that even in that case it fell quite short.

As per the link below the max interface bandwidth is 125.4 MB/sec and max transfer rates are 86MB/sec.

I am in complete agreement with you - can't argue with facts! :lol: . The discrepancy between the numbers we quote stem from the fact that you are using actual transfer rate - which is what should be used - and I used interface performance - because I wanted to show that even with that number, 670MB/s could not be reached.

People should understand that when they make outlandish claims that they look like idiots.

They certainly look rather misinformed I only bothered correcting the claim because it was so grossly exaggerated and potentially misleading.

HTH.

 

[petevsdrm]

a) Have you considered seek times? Important in certain activities, and RAID 0 slows them.
b) RAID 0 *is* more likely to destroy data, whether you like it or not. It can be avoided by backing up, but the statistical proof is there.

Example : You have two drives, each have a probability of 1/1000 of failing in a certain period. The probably of either failing in that time? (and so, with RAID0, wiping all your data) is 1/500 (ceteris paribus, obviously). Sure, 1/500 isn't high, but it's still more likely than with one drive.

No one can notice the few milliseconds difference in seek times. Seriously the seek time is significantly shorter than blinking your eyes. Are you trying to tell me that when loading a game up what really bothers you is those pesky extra-millisecond waits? Or do you prefer to have the game simply load 30-70% faster? (100% faster theoretically, but nothing's perfect)

Yes, I appreciate the lesson in statistics, I am sure that no one would understand you if you hadn't said

(ceteris paribus, obviously)

ROFL

If you buy 2 new hard drives, each will have roughly the same MTBF. Saying you have twice the chance of them failing is like saying that owning two cars gives you twice the chance of being in a car wreck.

You are not going to magically shorten the life of your hard drives by using them in a raid array.

 

[Synergy6]

:roll:

On seek times, you'll not notice 1 seek, sure. But, for those of us who do something other than capturing video feeds, most hard drive usage is not a contiguous file. Therefore, multiple seeking is required, which can be noticeable. After all, it doesn't matter whether burst transfer speed is 1mb/s or 100mb/s; while your hard drive is seeking, the transfer speed is a nice 0mb/s. Which is, of course, one of the main reasons to get a 10k or 15k drive.

As for reliability, I'm not here to teach you statistics. Once you learn that 2 drives in RAID 0 are more likely to have one of them fail than a single drive, you can come back and thank me.

 

[techgeek]

Good thread, some interesting points.

Obviously RAID 0 is statistically more vulnerable than running on one drive, just because you have given your system two points of failure instead of one. For people who are realistic, this shouldn't be a problem, realistic people back up there non-replaceable files.

If the above con doesn't deter you and price is not a consideration, why wouldn't you go with RAID. Nearly every motherboard today offers RAID, it's not a cost added feature anymore. You don't even have to go hog wild with two expensive Raptors to see the performance delta. Any two identical HDD's will give you a noticable increase in system responsiveness.

As for game load times, this argument has been hashed many times. The reason some games don't benefit from RAID 0 is that during load times, the game has to decompress some of the game data before it loads it in memory (QuakeX for example). If you have a really fast CPU, the bottleneck may be placed back onto the storage subsystem, or some combination of the two.

To me boot times and application launch times would be the attraction for RAID 0. I have been considering RAID for a long time. Adding another Seagate 7200.10 320GB drive to my system would give me a nice bump.

As for the person quoting the 670MB/s burst rate, not likely, and even if it were, relatively useless until hybrid HDD's start arriving. At 16MB of cache the likelyhood that your data is coming from this buffer is well... unlikely. At SATA 300, the theoretical max in RAID would be somewhat less than 600MB/s, so I'll take it as a typo for 570MB/s (if you are using SATA 300). Again this burst rate will give you next to imperceivable performance benefits under normal circumstances (unless you are working with the same small file exclusively). The real benefit is the sustained transfer rates. This provides the real (perceivable) performance increase.

This thread may get me to jump on board with RAID. It's not like I didn't know that RAID was better already, but sometimes you just need to hear it from someone else before you take the plunge. It's like pouring over benchmarks on review sites before your satisified that buying that new video card will give you the performance boost to justify the cost.

Again to the OP good thread. Nice to see so many people way in with their opinions.