2TB in RAID 0? Not so fast.

Thanks to Anand for posting yet another good look at Hitachi's upcoming 1TB drive. The best performing 7200rpm drive, however, gets no boost in reality from a RAID 0 setup.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969

Let the analysis begin.......
42 answers Last reply
More about raid fast
  1. nice review, thanx for the link
  2. Damn. I just read that article and wanted to post it for all the AID0 lovers here. A quote if I may from the article. (page 9, second paragraph.)

    Quote:
    RAID 0 sounds impressive in a system configuration and provides a performance placebo effect when viewing synthetic benchmarks. However, RAID 0 is just not worth the trouble or cost for the average desktop user or gamer, especially with the software RAID capabilities included on most motherboards. We will delve into the RAID world with additional tests and hardware combinations in the coming weeks but for now we again recommend that most desktop users should just stay away from it.


    Got it? Yes, AID0 is faster. The tests with AID0 finished 1-2 seconds faster then a non raid system. The problem for gamers is that the cost of the second drive would provide better benefits if it was put into a better CPU, GPU, ram, etc.
  3. yet with teh low price of HDs, and the facts that faster is still faster... RAID0 still has its place in the enthusiast PC... not to mention that they are still nonetheless, quite reliable...
    I have 6 HDs in my PC.
  4. Right, but also with the sizes of the drives sprialing upward, backup becomes an issue. In all but a few cases, I would call it an unwarranted cost. Unless everything else in your computer is maxxed out, the money spent on a RAID0 array would yield much better results if spent on other components.
  5. but hey... if you need to improve your boot time and PCMark05 benchmark scores then RAID 0 will certainly do that! :lol:
  6. lol, not really, you get 4 cheap ass 80gb drives, say, $50 each, put them in raid 0, they perform better than a raptor, store more and are cheaper.
  7. RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a fucking idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.
  8. :? been running at least one RAID0 drive about 4 yrs now...
  9. Then again, if you buy a TB HDD, I think you are buying it for storage more than speed.
  10. Quote:
    Then again, if you buy a TB HDD, I think you are buying it for storage more than speed.

    Even if it is the fastest 7,200 RPM hard drive?
  11. Then again, I can't fill a 200GB with useful data, as in stuff I would actually want, so TB means nothing to me.
  12. Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.


    So I'm an idiot because YOU say so? 8O... LMAO :lol:
  13. I'll give you the PCMark05 benchmark, but I've never seen faster winxp startup from RAID0. My home system has two 160GB WDAAJS's in RAID0, and my gaming computer has a single 74GB ADFD raptor, and the raptor boots faster. The home system has a 6600, and the gaming system has a D805@3.8 (I know, time to upgrade the gaming machine). Both have 2Gb RAM. The Raptor system is noticibly faster, 3-4 seconds at least, never used a stop watch on it though.

    That's the greatest thing about the new Hitatchi drive, not only is it hugemongous, it's damn fast too. Cheers to them for not sacrificing speed for capacity and actually delivering both. Sure, not everyone has a need for such a big drive, but I'm sure most people could find a use for it. Especially for HTPC's or, well, huge chunks of the stuff the internet is REALLY for.....
  14. Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.


    So I'm an idiot because YOU say so? 8O... LMAO :lol:

    Count me in with idiots. You can buy a fast proc, overclock, tune your memory but if you try to find more speed in the slowest part of your system you're an idiot.

    Quote:
    but for now we again recommend that most desktop users should just stay away from it.


    Most desktop users shouldn't overclock, most shouldn't water cool, most shouldn't buy fast ram etc., etc. I don't think many reading these forums are the average user.
  15. AID0 is pretty much the LAST thing you should get for a build. Go look in the forum for people asking for build advice. Watch them talk about buying 2 harddrives, but only a 7900GS. They want to get AID0 up instead of buying the 6600 instead of the 6300. AID0 is what you buy when you're done building your system, quad core cpu, SLI/CF graphics, 2GB+ of high performance memory, etc. Once you have all that in your rig, then consider AID0. As long as someone is talking about buying a 7600GT/7900GS, I'm going to tell them to drop the AID0 idea.
  16. I agree absolutely. Too many skimp on other, more critical components in favor of putting in an array that's not going to be noticibly faster in 95% of apps. Not only that, but when used as a system drive it's an invitation to disaster, unless you do 0+1, which is even more money.

    If you've maxxed everything else out, then why not use it? It's not really going to hurt, but a gain of 1 or 2% isn't worth much in my book.
  17. Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.


    Gimme a break. I've been exclusively using stripes since you could hack a promise ata66 card to a fasttrack.

    Used Promise FT 66, FT 100, FT 133, Intel ICH 5/7R, Various Silicon Image ATA and Sata Controllers, nForce 4, and now I'm using a ULi M1575.

    I've never lost any data or drives. Never had to rebuild a stripe or copy data back from my backup drives.

    Wah Wah :( I had a bad experience once. Get over it
  18. Quote:
    AID0 is pretty much the LAST thing you should get for a build. Go look in the forum for people asking for build advice. Watch them talk about buying 2 hard drives, but only a 7900GS. They want to get AID0 up instead of buying the 6600 instead of the 6300. AID0 is what you buy when you're done building your system, quad core cpu, SLI/CF graphics, 2GB+ of high performance memory, etc. Once you have all that in your rig, then consider AID0. As long as someone is talking about buying a 7600GT/7900GS, I'm going to tell them to drop the AID0 idea.


    I mostly agree with you here. Upgrades should be planned with a balanced approach.
    I first became interested in Raid because of online gaming; specifically the BF series. I remember joining the game and only to see the planes and tanks roll out of the base. When BF2 came out the load times were huge. For a gamer you cannot underestimate the advantage 1-2 sec. in load time can give you. Anandtech did BF2 load time and typically showed a 1 sec. advantage. They tested offline load time which is must faster than online. Online does a client verification which is all hard drive access. In my experience being on TS comparing load time with other players, two decent hard drives in raid 0 are only beaten by two raptors. I don't play BF any more but in the hundreds of hours I played, Raid 0 gave me an unfair advantage. I would be in the air and across the map before 2/3rds of the players had joined.
    That explains why I started using raid 0. I also feel that everything feels quicker but this is harder to prove or quantify. I hate load bars and hour glasses.
  19. Quote:
    AID0 is pretty much the LAST thing you should get for a build. Go look in the forum for people asking for build advice. Watch them talk about buying 2 hard drives, but only a 7900GS. They want to get AID0 up instead of buying the 6600 instead of the 6300. AID0 is what you buy when you're done building your system, quad core cpu, SLI/CF graphics, 2GB+ of high performance memory, etc. Once you have all that in your rig, then consider AID0. As long as someone is talking about buying a 7600GT/7900GS, I'm going to tell them to drop the AID0 idea.


    I mostly agree with you here. Upgrades should be planned with a balanced approach.
    I first became interested in Raid because of online gaming; specifically the BF series. I remember joining the game and only to see the planes and tanks roll out of the base. When BF2 came out the load times were huge. For a gamer you cannot underestimate the advantage 1-2 sec. in load time can give you. Anandtech did BF2 load time and typically showed a 1 sec. advantage. They tested offline load time which is must faster than online. Online does a client verification which is all hard drive access. In my experience being on TS comparing load time with other players, two decent hard drives in raid 0 are only beaten by two raptors. I don't play BF any more but in the hundreds of hours I played, Raid 0 gave me an unfair advantage. I would be in the air and across the map before 2/3rds of the players had joined.
    That explains why I started using raid 0. I also feel that everything feels quicker but this is harder to prove or quantify. I hate load bars and hour glasses.

    word 8)
  20. Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.


    What an insightful, well explained post.

    what a tool.

    Like one of the others I use a RAID0 setup and have on my last 2 machines and its definatrly faster.


    IMHO the best config for a single PC would be:
    2 x 150GB Raptor - RAID0 - Windows/Games/Apps ( C: )
    2 x 1TB or 750GB - RAID1 - Backup of C: and Data Storage ( D: )

    Almost every new mobo out there will do 4 drives and will do RAID 1 and 0, both require the least amount of CPU Cycles as well.
    You Ghost (or whatever) your 300GB array over to the Backup/Storage Volume on a semi regular basis and you dont need to worry about the inherant pitfalls in RAID0.


    PS: Something else to consider is RAID1, when done with a GOOD RAID Controller, will often distribute reads. Meaning Reads are done like RAID0 and Writes are done like RAID1. I'm not sure if most cheapo "onboard RAID" controllers do it this way or not. But for most gamers, your doing 95% read anyway. You still only get 1/2 your total storage but your reads should be faster. So you get the best of both worlds.
  21. The risk to gain ratio for RAID 0 is a bit tilted towards being risky. If you are going to do this then don't boot to it so that if it fails you don't have to rebuild everything. for people looking for fast i recommend RAID 10, 4 drives RAID 0, RAID 1 used together so you get a stripped mirror. I still think for the gain of raid 0 it isn't really worth it unless you are serving high I/O, game load times don't seem to change much. Don't get me wrong there is a qualitative gain but not much that can be measured. The other approach is raid 5 with 3 drives. raid 5 should give the fastest loading times but depending on the card writes can slow down due to figuring out the parity bit. when it comes to RAID 5 the more drives the faster the RAID because i/o is spread out. you have to watch out for hotspots with cheap raid controllers though.
  22. why would you want that much hard drive space anyway? my school has 2tb on their main server for all the school computers. it takes the school the ENTIRE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS (8weeks in Aust.) to defrag!!! THATS INSANE!
  23. These HDD's are likely much faster than what your school uses for its servers, even completely full I'd estimate about 6 hours for a moderately fragged drive.
  24. Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.


    Gimme a break. I've been exclusively using stripes since you could hack a promise ata66 card to a fasttrack.

    Used Promise FT 66, FT 100, FT 133, Intel ICH 5/7R, Various Silicon Image ATA and Sata Controllers, nForce 4, and now I'm using a ULi M1575.

    I've never lost any data or drives. Never had to rebuild a stripe or copy data back from my backup drives.

    Wah Wah :( I had a bad experience once. Get over it

    I still have one of those hacked FT 66 cards in one of my old computers. That was a cool mod. 8)

    I've been using RAID 0 for seven or eight years without any major problems. I have had drives fail, bringing down the array, but I have solid backups to turn to and Acronis images to rebuild boot partitions with. It's a pain in the a** to replace a dead drive regardless of how it was used or what was on it.

    Experienced users know to make good backups, frequently. Even RAID 1 isn't going to help you if you delete a file by mistake. RAID 0 is faster in some situations so if you know what you're doing, it can be a benefit.
  25. Quote:
    Right, but also with the sizes of the drives sprialing upward, backup becomes an issue. In all but a few cases, I would call it an unwarranted cost. Unless everything else in your computer is maxxed out, the money spent on a RAID0 array would yield much better results if spent on other components.


    I agree with this. RAID 0 is a benefit performance wise, but for the vast majority of folks it is a very, very small benefit. It should be considered definetly as one of the last steps to fine tuning a system that already has the best of everything.
    And, if you go RAID 0....backup, backup, backup!
  26. Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.


    pffftt been using it in 4 machines for years now, all still fine and gives that little extra boost.

    you dont like raid thats your problem
  27. I think the problem with the RAID perfomance in this test is using the motherboard raid controller instead of a hard drive controller card...
  28. ive been using Raid 0 for 3 years now not lost a single peice of data.

    i do a moderate amount of video encoding and move files around alot and my raid 0 is great for doing that. i do also game off it but havnt really noticed an improvement. when i make my next build (come on r600!!!!) ill run a few tests and see how it goes.
  29. Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.
  30. Quote:
    Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.


    And again, if you are not running a storage system that has large overhead (such as RAID 5 on a server), they may actually reduce performance. A hardware RAID card with a 100MHz dedicated CPU is slower running something like a RAID 0 stripe than an host based onboard with a fast CPU. They only improve performance in the server environment, not in workstation or enthusiast use.

    This is exactly why the Killer NIC is a stupid idea. A NIC with its own, slow 400MHz chip and RAM would only benefit a server, not a gamer. Games need bandwidth, not low CPU usage and off-loading.
  31. I can't resist, running RAID0 on 2 computers right now, been doing that since the Abit KT7-RAID days with the Athlon 900. RAID computers just feel faster, I don't think its really quantifiable in an easy manner.

    I had a maxtor drive fail once in the RAID0 array, and obviously lost everything.

    Then again, I had a maxtor drive fail all by itself and I lost everything.

    What's the difference, exactly? Is it that statistically you're twice as exposed to losing everything? If you ran two seperate drives, would it be better to lose 1/2 of everything?

    Take $200:

    a) Buy a 150GB Raptor.

    b) Buy 2 320GB Seagates. Run RAID0.

    Results:

    Raptor may boot faster, but RAID0 will have faster sustained reads. Raptor has lower access times, but RAID0 has 490GB more capacity. The RAID0 is twice as likely to fail as the single drive Seagate. The Raptor runs at 10,000RPM so is more likely to fail than a 7200RPM.

    How would you feel about a RAID0 made from the Enterprise series of drives? They're designed for 24/7 RAID operation. The price is about the same, maybe 10% higher.

    Oh, and you can actually save about 10% of that $200 with the RAID0.
  32. Quote:
    I can't resist, running RAID0 on 2 computers right now, been doing that since the Abit KT7-RAID days with the Athlon 900. RAID computers just feel faster, I don't think its really quantifiable in an easy manner.

    I had a maxtor drive fail once in the RAID0 array, and obviously lost everything.

    Then again, I had a maxtor drive fail all by itself and I lost everything.

    What's the difference, exactly? Is it that statistically you're twice as exposed to losing everything? If you ran two seperate drives, would it be better to lose 1/2 of everything?

    Take $200:

    a) Buy a 150GB Raptor.

    b) Buy 2 320GB Seagates. Run RAID0.

    Results:

    Raptor may boot faster, but RAID0 will have faster sustained reads. Raptor has lower access times, but RAID0 has 490GB more capacity. The RAID0 is twice as likely to fail as the single drive Seagate. The Raptor runs at 10,000RPM so is more likely to fail than a 7200RPM.

    How would you feel about a RAID0 made from the Enterprise series of drives? They're designed for 24/7 RAID operation. The price is about the same, maybe 10% higher.

    Oh, and you can actually save about 10% of that $200 with the RAID0.


    Yeah exactly. I spend a lot of timing trying to recover data from customer's drives, and they only have one.

    With RAID 0 do you need to back up? Of course, but like you said, single drives fail every day too. You always need to backup as long as hard drives exist the way we know them today.

    Hell we had a customer with a Solid State Drive fail, which runs the OS of his milling machine LOL.
  33. I agree. I've been setting up RAID-0 PCs for 7 years and using my own RAID-0 arrays for 3 years and I love it. It's like dual-core (well, almost but not exactly). With dual-cores for single-threaded games you probably won't notice a difference, but the response time and offloading you get from another core just blows single-core processors out of the water even if the gaming benchies don't show it. In the computer world, milliseconds matter. They really do. You notice performance differences with just a 1% increase in any kind of speed, be it hard-drive, processor, RAM, or communications busses.
  34. Quote:
    why would you want that much hard drive space anyway? my school has 2tb on their main server for all the school computers. it takes the school the ENTIRE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS (8weeks in Aust.) to defrag!!! THATS INSANE!


    1tb is only about 17 hours of uncompressed avi video.

    with Hi Def ..1920*1080 1 frame=almost 6mb

    6mb*25=150 mb per secound
    150mb*60=9000mb a minute
    9000mb*60=540 GIG per hour , for uncompressed Hidef avi

    1 hour !
    Now thats insane.
    -------------------------
    I degrag my 800 gig everyday , takes about 20 minutes with a good peace of software. Sure if I left a year and then done it , it might take 8 weeks.
  35. Quote:
    Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.


    And again, if you are not running a storage system that has large overhead (such as RAID 5 on a server), they may actually reduce performance. A hardware RAID card with a 100MHz dedicated CPU is slower running something like a RAID 0 stripe than an host based onboard with a fast CPU. They only improve performance in the server environment, not in workstation or enthusiast use.

    This is exactly why the Killer NIC is a stupid idea. A NIC with its own, slow 400MHz chip and RAM would only benefit a server, not a gamer. Games need bandwidth, not low CPU usage and off-loading.

    It's funny that you mention that, considering that the Killer NIC has been shown to increase framerates and reduce ping times by a bigger percentage than RAID0 ever has. Of course, with its price, it's still a bad idea for the majority of people out there.
  36. Quote:
    Nope, you get the pretty much the same results with an add-in. Motherboard controllers, especially ICH7 & 8, are actually pretty darn good. A good stand-alone controller gives a slight performance boost by reducing CPU overhead, but costs more than a hard drive. So once again you have trivial gains for good money.


    And again, if you are not running a storage system that has large overhead (such as RAID 5 on a server), they may actually reduce performance. A hardware RAID card with a 100MHz dedicated CPU is slower running something like a RAID 0 stripe than an host based onboard with a fast CPU. They only improve performance in the server environment, not in workstation or enthusiast use.

    This is exactly why the Killer NIC is a stupid idea. A NIC with its own, slow 400MHz chip and RAM would only benefit a server, not a gamer. Games need bandwidth, not low CPU usage and off-loading.

    It's funny that you mention that, considering that the Killer NIC has been shown to increase framerates and reduce ping times by a bigger percentage than RAID0 ever has. Of course, with its price, it's still a bad idea for the majority of people out there.

    Riiiiiight...... I ordered an M1 Killer for a customer. After the going through a pile of defective ones I was very excited when I finally got one for him that actually worked. It did a lot of sweet F4CK ALL for his games. WoW might improve a few percent, big deal. Read a few more reviews on the Killer....

    A good QoS router and a high bandwidth cable connection (you can buy up to 25Mbit in my city atm) make a much larger difference.
  37. Well, the point I was getting at is that ANY framerate increase is better than a faster load-time when it comes to playability. The Killer NIC is one of those weird pieces of gear that pop up now and then. You get the most benefit from it when you're using an old, slow, single-core setup, but if you have an old, slow, single-core setup, why the F#$K would you spend 300 bucks for a NIC? I personally think it's pretty sweet, but I sure as hell wouldn't pay much for one, if they drop below 100 I might pick one up to play around with, not to increase my framerates obviously. In fact, the Killer NIC is just like RAID 0 in many ways, it offers a tiny benefit for the great majority of users, is just fine if you have a pimped-to-D-max system, but otherwise isn't worth the cost.

    If you're cutting corners on other components to put RAID 0 into your system, and you don't work on video or photo editing a lot, you're probably screwing yourself out of some performance. Period.
  38. Hmm. Is Raid 0 Faster than only one drive? Yes! Sometimes by alot and sometimes by a little but it IS faster. Now lets do alittle math. Example: 2 X 500GB drive cost is approx. $140. One TB drive is $400. Hmm. Raid 0 is faster and cheaper. Now the downfall. You have a higher possibility of a drive failure. Well, we all are backing up our data, Right. Then who cares. I hope this clears the waters a little. Party on Garth!
  39. Actually, if you read about, 1 7K1000 is faster in all but heavy video-editing and such tasks than 2 500GB in RAID0. Also, you meant 2X500GB @ 140 ea.
  40. Those are impressive stats for such a large volume. I give it up to Hitachi for making such a tremendous drive and still have it perform like a drive (Raptor) 1/10th it's size. I could see snagging two or three of these for a RAID1 or RAID5 to store all my media, mp3's, and DVD collection. Just gonna have to wait until they drop in price. Reading this article makes me also look forward to solid state and hybrid drives. Good read...

    Quote:
    RAID 0 is bullshit from start to finish on the desktop. You've got to be a ****** idiot to implement it.

    RAID 1 - sure - but 0 is a worthless piece of crap which will cause you to curse the day you decided to go with it.

    You've been warned.

    If you've got to be an idiot to implement RAID0, then call me a complete and utter fv*king moron. Thanks for the warning. :roll: Multiple builds with multiple RAID0 arrays with nary a hiccup or data loss. It's a shame you gotta be like that.

    Quote:
    yet with teh low price of HDs, and the facts that faster is still faster... RAID0 still has its place in the enthusiast PC... not to mention that they are still nonetheless, quite reliable...
    I have 6 HDs in my PC.

    I hear that! Deciding whether to go with RAID0 or not is a no brainer for most enthusiasts. Before you know it, there are 40GB, 80GB, and 120GB drives laying around after swaps and upgrades, so why not?! However, it still seems the general mindset is to have 1 large drive and partition it rather than multiple drives. Of course, it's easier for Dell to sell and advertise 1 - 320GB drive rather than 2 -80GB in RAID0 and a 250GB drive. Personally, I've been sold on RAID0 for a while and will continue with using them in future builds.
  41. Quote:
    Hmm. Is Raid 0 Faster than only one drive? Yes! Sometimes by alot and sometimes by a little but it IS faster. Now lets do alittle math. Example: 2 X 500GB drive cost is approx. $140. One TB drive is $400. Hmm. Raid 0 is faster and cheaper. Now the downfall. You have a higher possibility of a drive failure. Well, we all are backing up our data, Right. Then who cares. I hope this clears the waters a little. Party on Garth!


    Party on Wayne! :lol:

    There are myths on both sides of the fence about raid arrays.

    Some insist it is more dangerous and expensive than it really is, I think these have been debunked thoroughly.

    Some insist it provides MUCH more of a benefit than it really does, I believe these have been benchmarked often enough to be disproven as well.

    I use 2 x 320gb seagate 7200.10 on ICH7R for my games drive, and 1 raptor (old 8mb cache flavor) for my os. I have used raid for years and never lost data, and it is faster, but not by a really significant margin. I picked up my drives because they were cheaper to get 2 drives for the amount of storage that I wanted, and I would get that small but noticeable boost in performance.

    My $0.02000034008000004
  42. I'd rather run a Raid 0 and take the risk of a drive failure than to pay a chunk of change for one big hard drive.

    The same argument can be made for single drives. Hard drive 'A' uses more platters than hard drive 'B' so therefore it has a higher risk of drive failure. That's just something we all deal with. There will always be some form of risk with whatever setup you decide to go with.

    I don't consider myself as an extreme PC enthusiast but I did the RAID 0 on my setup because I did care about the minimal performance increases I'd see on my PC. That's why a lot of people do it. Hard drives are the slowest component in terms of bottlenecks - so if we can get some sort of an increase in hard drive performance, we do it.

    I also agree that you shouldn't go with a Raid and go cheap on other things...
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Hitachi Storage