RAID 0 to single drive = suck

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.
151 answers Last reply
More about raid single drive suck
  1. CLAPS! i love my raid 0. You could always do a 0+1 for the same cost of 2 raptors
  2. Quote:
    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.
  3. Quote:
    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.
  4. 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!
  5. Quote:
    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.
  6. 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!
  7. Quote:
    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 :(
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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...
  11. 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

    Quote:
    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
  12. 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.
  13. Quote:
    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)
  14. Quote:
    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.
  15. Quote:
    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.
  16. 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.
  17. Quote:
    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.
  18. Quote:

    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....
  19. 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.

    Quote:
    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.
    Quote:

    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.
  20. 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.
  21. Quote:
    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.

    Quote:
    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.

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


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

    HTH.
  22. Quote:
    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
    Quote:
    (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.
  23. :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.
  24. 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.
  25. I NEVER ADD MY 2CENTS TO ANY FORUM BUT I JOINED THIS ONE TO SAY ,WHEN i BUILT MY FIRST COMP.TWO YEARS AGO,WHEN HARD DRIVES WERE NOT CHEAP, i USED 3 X80 GIG HITACHI DRIVES IN RAID MATRIX RAID 0 FOR O\S & RAID 5 FOR BACK UPS i've had no problems on a p5wd2 & p5wdh, but why when people talk about raid they only think about two drives then say raid is not that mush faster.when you put 4 drives in 0 it blows 2 raptors away for much less money.my 2cents
  26. Quote:
    :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.


    I'm sorry if I came across as kind of a douchebag, I'm pretty hungover if that's any excuse.

    You are more likely to lose data in a raid0 array, but the chances are still insignificant, and it hardly doubles the chance of hard drive failure, which is so often touted as the case.

    The reality is that eventually one of your hard drives will fail regardless of usage, and undoubtedly they will not fail simultaneously, BUT the one that fails is not going to fail in half the time of the other, it will probably fail within 5% (+ or - depending on manufacturing standards) of the time the other would have failed anyway. So the big risk is that you might lose 5% of the life of one of your hard drives. That does not seem significant to me, particularly judging from how frequently you would have to upgrade your harddrives for storage purposes anyway.

    You are also right in saying that there are certain applications for which seek times may make more of an impact on performance, but I don't use them and gaming is certainly not one of these applications.
  27. Quote:
    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!


    You sir are a little more optimistic than reality calls for. Burst rate means jack crap, literally. It is just reading from the onboard cache on the hard drive. Now, honestly, how many of your files actually fit entirely inside the cache and stay there? Hmmmm not many.

    Burst rate is largely a function of the interface used, SATA 150 vs. SATA 300, but makes no real difference in real world use.

    I am going to say RAID 0, in general, is largely dependent on what controller you use. Good controllers make RAID look REALLY REALLY good, and bad controllers make RAID look REALLY REALLY bad. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Some people see no purpose in RAID, some have a distorted view of what RAID will bring them, and some get it right.

    I have gone back and forth and I just don't see enough benefit FOR ME to use RAID 0. I saw a bigger improvement overall going to a Raptor. The reduced seek times/rotational latency were a bigger help than the STR.

    Just don't except RAID 0 to help you in gaming really.

    AHHH I love RAID debates.
  28. RAID 0 sucks A$$ for data integrity.

    If you dont care that you can lose all your data in one fell lightning strike then carry on dude!
  29. Quote:
    I NEVER ADD MY 2CENTS TO ANY FORUM BUT I JOINED THIS ONE TO SAY ,WHEN i BUILT MY FIRST COMP.TWO YEARS AGO,WHEN HARD DRIVES WERE NOT CHEAP, i USED 3 X80 GIG HITACHI DRIVES IN RAID MATRIX RAID 0 FOR O\S & RAID 5 FOR BACK UPS i've had no problems on a p5wd2 & p5wdh, but why when people talk about raid they only think about two drives then say raid is not that mush faster.when you put 4 drives in 0 it blows 2 raptors away for much less money.my 2cents


    Work on the caps lock button... very hard to read.

    Quote:
    RAID 0 sucks A$$ for data integrity.

    If you dont care that you can lose all your data in one fell lightning strike then carry on dude!


    Surge protector + Backup + line conditioner = problem solved :D
  30. ... I have never seen so many raid 0 fan boys in my life. Wow raid 0 my pc loads windows 2 seconds faster. Are people really becoming this impatient and lazy? I mean come on, i dont care if u rip dvd's to ur hard drives for a living. If u can't wait a extra minute, why dont u just get lost. I cant believe what this world is coming to. They now even have can openers that open the can by itself. People if u are really that impatient and lazy what are u gonna do with your xtra time. Big whoop u saved a minute doing something with a faster hard drive? wow saved another minute for wut? to sit infront of a tv and eat mc donalds and get fatter? I dont care how busy you are, Raid 0 is nothing but a spoil. Damn'd raid fan boy newbs.
  31. Quote:
    RAID 0 sucks A$$ for data integrity.

    If you dont care that you can lose all your data in one fell lightning strike then carry on dude!


    I think that's a bit extreme. I've used raid0 arrays for years and I have never lost 1 file or had 1 become corrupted. "sucks A$$" seems to imply that I would be having constant problems with it.

    Any hard drive set up can be destroyed by a lightning strike! Surge protector FTW.

    @superfly03
    Right now I am using ICH7r which, while not as good as the newer ICH8r, is still rock solid and quite fast. After reading that review about the raid limitations on the 680i chipset I was glad to have even this older one. And yeah it won't help you get more frames per second in games but it will make your games load much faster and change areas much faster.(admittedly not in all games)
  32. Quote:
    ... I have never seen so many raid 0 fan boys in my life. Wow raid 0 my pc loads windows 2 seconds faster. Are people really becoming this impatient and lazy? I mean come on, i dont care if u rip dvd's to ur hard drives for a living. If u can't wait a extra minute, why dont u just get lost. I cant believe what this world is coming to. They now even have can openers that open the can by itself. People if u are really that impatient and lazy what are u gonna do with your xtra time. Big whoop u saved a minute doing something with a faster hard drive? wow saved another minute for wut? to sit infront of a tv and eat mc donalds and get fatter? I dont care how busy you are, Raid 0 is nothing but a spoil. Damn'd raid fan boy newbs.


    So let me get this right....you think people should not take advantage of a free performance boost? And that people who demand the most from their hardware are "impatient and lazy". I guess people who buy the best video cards are "myopic with no imagination?" :lol:
  33. Quote:
    So let me get this right....you think people should not take advantage of a free performance boost? And that people who demand the most from their hardware are "impatient and lazy". I guess people who buy the best video cards are "myopic with no imagination?"



    i never knew hard drives grew from trees.
  34. Quote:
    And yeah it won't help you get more frames per second in games but it will make your games load much faster and change areas much faster.(admittedly not in all games)


    This is the point of GREAT debate. In reality new games + new hardware = CPU bottleneck for loading games due to decompression (been shown time and time again). However, if you pair an older game (even 18 months old) with new hardware it is very possible that your hard drive can become the bottleneck because of the great strides made in CPU processing power.

    So it is very context dependent. I will bet money that Crysis will be CPU bottlenecked not storage bottlenecked, but BF2 is now storage bottlenecked (if you have a high end C2D/X2 or OC'd one). So really context matters, as always. :D

    Side note... I am thinking about getting a real raid controller, not a built in POS one a la $300 kind. Not sure yet, still thinking about the whole scenario. Reason being, I have a home server that does some work for me and I would like to RAID5/6 it up.
  35. Careful who you reply to :wink:
  36. Quote:
    So let me get this right....you think people should not take advantage of a free performance boost? And that people who demand the most from their hardware are "impatient and lazy". I guess people who buy the best video cards are "myopic with no imagination?"



    i never knew hard drives grew from trees.

    Its cheaper to get two smaller hard drives an raid them then to get one larger one with the same capacity. :roll:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148136
    500 GB @ $144.99

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148142
    250 GB @ $69.99 x2 = 500 GB @ $139.98

    So it actually saves you a few dollars to get better performance with a raid0.
  37. Quote:
    ... I have never seen so many raid 0 fan boys in my life. Wow raid 0 my pc loads windows 2 seconds faster. Are people really becoming this impatient and lazy? I mean come on, i dont care if u rip dvd's to ur hard drives for a living. If u can't wait a extra minute, why dont u just get lost. I cant believe what this world is coming to. They now even have can openers that open the can by itself. People if u are really that impatient and lazy what are u gonna do with your xtra time. Big whoop u saved a minute doing something with a faster hard drive? wow saved another minute for wut? to sit infront of a tv and eat mc donalds and get fatter? I dont care how busy you are, Raid 0 is nothing but a spoil. Damn'd raid fan boy newbs.


    You'd never have invented the wheel, methinks.
  38. Quote:
    So let me get this right....you think people should not take advantage of a free performance boost? And that people who demand the most from their hardware are "impatient and lazy". I guess people who buy the best video cards are "myopic with no imagination?"



    i never knew hard drives grew from trees.

    Its cheaper to get two smaller hard drives an raid them then to get one larger one with the same capacity. :roll:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148136
    500 GB @ $144.99

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148142
    250 GB @ $69.99 x2 = 500 GB @ $139.98

    So it actually saves you a few dollars to get better performance with a raid0.


    ok almost a good point but then u gotta ship two hard drives so it will be more expensive. and plus is it really a great idea to have 2 x 250 hardrives in a case for the same price?
    1. it takes up double the space in ur case.
    2. doubling the amount of air flow blocked from the front fans in the case. 3. inturn increasing motherboard and other temps.
    4. inturn decreasing component life
    5. decreasing overclock potentional (which will show greater performance gains then any hard drive)
    6.Ok u watercool ur pc? i m sure about 90% of us depend on air cooling.
    7. computer cases have limited hard drive slots, so it is not always wiser to go with 2 smaller hd's in raid, cuz then ur limiting ur max storage potentional since a case can only hold so many hard drives. in other words why go raid to save a worthless minute.
  39. Quote:

    Side note... I am thinking about getting a real raid controller, not a built in POS one a la $300 kind. Not sure yet, still thinking about the whole scenario. Reason being, I have a home server that does some work for me and I would like to RAID5/6 it up.


    Nice, be sure to let us know how well it works. I did not want to drop that kind of money on my storage, but if it really is a blockbuster it may be something I'll do in the future. For now I'll stick with my POS one. :oops:
  40. Quote:

    Side note... I am thinking about getting a real raid controller, not a built in POS one a la $300 kind. Not sure yet, still thinking about the whole scenario. Reason being, I have a home server that does some work for me and I would like to RAID5/6 it up.


    Nice, be sure to let us know how well it works. I did not want to drop that kind of money on my storage, but if it really is a blockbuster it may be something I'll do in the future. For now I'll stick with my POS one. :oops:

    Yeah the price is what is really holding me back, but I have heard that true controllers are in a vastly superior league when compared to onboard ones. I also have to buy 2 more hard drives, which is another added cost. I will start a thread in the hard drive section if I get it (will be in the next month or so if I do).
  41. I built a new computer over the summer, but only had enough money in the budget for one 150 GB raptor. I recently got the 2nd one I had intended to get, and I have to say the difference is definitely noticable. Going from one raptor to two raptors in RAID 0 has given a pretty substancial performance boost.
  42. Quote:
    1. it takes up double the space in ur case.


    That doesn't change if the drives are in RAID 0 or not, but if you are talking about buying a second drive then it is a valid point. However, most cases support at least 3 hard drives in a drive cage.

    Quote:
    2. doubling the amount of air flow blocked from the front fans in the case.


    Is that your only fan in front? Why not move it to another slot so the air flow isn't blocked? Google released data on hard drive failures and temperature wasn't among the leading causes, ironically.

    Quote:
    3. inturn increasing motherboard and other temps.


    See #2 :D

    Quote:
    4. inturn decreasing component life


    See # 2, problem solved. However, in the case that #2 isn't possible, I doubt that more than 2-3c change in temps would occur, which wouldn't noticeably decrease component life times.

    Quote:
    5. decreasing overclock potentional (which will show greater performance gains then any hard drive)


    You make alot of assumptions... it really depends on the setup. Many times (esp on A64 systems) the CPU architecture is the limiting factor, not temps.

    Quote:
    6.Ok u watercool ur pc? i m sure about 90% of us depend on air cooling.


    Meh. I'd say 95% :tongue:

    Quote:
    7. computer cases have limited hard drive slots, so it is not always wiser to go with 2 smaller hd's in raid, cuz then ur limiting ur max storage potentional since a case can only hold so many hard drives. in other words why go raid to save a worthless minute.


    Heard of e-SATA? NAS? DAS? :D
  43. Quote:
    in other words why go raid to save a worthless minute.


    I value my time, and furthermore you must be aware by now that you only get a limited amount of it.

    Quote:

    1. it takes up double the space in ur case.
    2. doubling the amount of air flow blocked from the front fans in the case.
    3. inturn increasing motherboard and other temps.
    4. inturn decreasing component life
    7. computer cases have limited hard drive slots, so it is not always wiser to go with 2 smaller hd's in raid, cuz then ur limiting ur max storage potentional since a case can only hold so many hard drives


    I see that all of your "points" are centering around how horrible its going to be to have a whopping extra hard drive in your case. You make it sound like I want to mount a propane torch in my case. :lol:

    My case can easily support having 2 hard drives in it. There are probably cases that support only 1, but I see you also have 2 hard drives in your box as well. For that matter my case supports 6 hard drives and keeps the hard drives and power supply separate from my other components.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ShowImage.aspx?Image=11-112-117-05.jpg,11-112-117-02.jpg,11-112-117-03.jpg&CurImage=11-112-117-03.jpg&Depa=1&Description=LIAN%20LI%20PC-V1000APLUSII%20W%20Silver%20Aluminum%20ATX%20Mid%20Tower%20Computer%20Case%20-%20Retail

    And if you could explain to me how it affects your overclocking potential ?

    In the world of today all motherboards that support overclocking allow you to lock the frequency of the bus at whatever speed you like. I easily overclocked my e6700 to 3.8ghz, but lowered it down to 3.33 to keep it nice and cool, even though I had a satanic raid array in my case. :lol:

    Quote:

    6.Ok u watercool ur pc? i m sure about 90% of us depend on air cooling.


    Yeah also everything in this rig is aircooled, who said anything about watercooling?
  44. Quote:
    in other words why go raid to save a worthless minute.


    I value my time, and furthermore you must be aware by now that you only get a limited amount of it.

    Quote:

    1. it takes up double the space in ur case.
    2. doubling the amount of air flow blocked from the front fans in the case.
    3. inturn increasing motherboard and other temps.
    4. inturn decreasing component life
    7. computer cases have limited hard drive slots, so it is not always wiser to go with 2 smaller hd's in raid, cuz then ur limiting ur max storage potentional since a case can only hold so many hard drives


    I see that all of your "points" are centering around how horrible its going to be to have a whopping extra hard drive in your case. You make it sound like I want to mount a propane torch in my case. :lol:

    My case can easily support having 2 hard drives in it. There are probably cases that support only 1, but I see you also have 2 hard drives in your box as well. For that matter my case supports 6 hard drives and keeps the hard drives and power supply separate from my other components.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ShowImage.aspx?Image=11-112-117-05.jpg,11-112-117-02.jpg,11-112-117-03.jpg&CurImage=11-112-117-03.jpg&Depa=1&Description=LIAN%20LI%20PC-V1000APLUSII%20W%20Silver%20Aluminum%20ATX%20Mid%20Tower%20Computer%20Case%20-%20Retail

    And if you could explain to me how it affects your overclocking potential ?

    In the world of today all motherboards that support overclocking allow you to lock the frequency of the bus at whatever speed you like. I easily overclocked my e6700 to 3.8ghz, but lowered it down to 3.33 to keep it nice and cool, even though I had a satanic raid array in my case. :lol:

    Quote:

    6.Ok u watercool ur pc? i m sure about 90% of us depend on air cooling.


    Yeah also everything in this rig is aircooled, who said anything about watercooling?


    ok all u damnd raid fan boys are teaming up against me. I have made my stand weither or not you agree with them. I have had points, i d like to see anyone of u make a betteer stand. all u fan boys claim "raid 0 is faster" whatever u ll never see the light with a newb attitude like that.
  45. Quote:

    ok all u damnd raid fan boys are teaming up against me. I have made my stand weither or not you agree with them. I have had points, i d like to see anyone of u make a betteer stand. all u fan boys claim "raid 0 is faster" whatever u ll never see the light with a newb attitude like that.


    Well I must admit, the power of your logic has been hard to resist. :roll:

    And you hit the nail on the head - I am a "raid fanboy" as I am a fanboy of anything that inexpensively boosts my performance.

    I guess I'll just never see the light. :lol: :lol: :lol:
  46. Quote:
    ok all u damnd raid fan boys are teaming up against me. I have made my stand weither or not you agree with them. I have had points, i d like to see anyone of u make a betteer stand. all u fan boys claim "raid 0 is faster" whatever u ll never see the light with a newb attitude like that.


    Spell check anyone?

    Take a better stance? What makes a stance good or bad? If it depends on who is right and who is wrong, then your stance is in error since you logic is flawed to the point of not warranting the word "logic."

    Fan boys? Hmmm, because a technology works in some context and not others it is useless?
  47. Ok i m done raid fanboys. Use ur raid, have fun when one of ur hard drives die, and i dont care if u back up ur data or not, ur drives will fail beffore you ever had a chance to back data up. I m done with this thread.
  48. I agree that RAID 0 is worthwhile. I had a RAID 0 pair in my current PC, but my car needed work and, desperate for cash, I sold off the two Raptor drives, replacing it with a single drive. I missed the RAID 0's speed before Windows had even finished booting up. Of course, I'm sure it mattered that they were Raptors, but I had a RAID 0 pair of 7200RPM drives before that and felt the improvement then, too.

    Does an Adaptec "SATA Connect" card count as a "real RAID controller"? I had used it for that first 7200RPM RAID 0 set, back before motherboards had RAID routinely integrated. It's still around, somewhere.

    To "KnowsItAll": I had FOUR hard drives! Yes, flames shot out of my PC on a regular basis. My case's hard-drive cage can hold five drives, but I dare not fill it; it would undoubtedly end civilization.
  49. Quote:
    "KnowsItAll": I had FOUR hard drives! Yes, flames shot out of my PC on a regular basis. My case's hard-drive cage can hold five drives, but I dare not fill it; it would undoubtedly end civilization.


    this coming from the you? a guy who uses a pentium 4 and a 8800gtx? if you make a hardware choice like that. i wouldnt be suprised if u did have flames shooting out of your case!
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives NAS / RAID Storage Product