X-25m G2 V2 or 2 WD 1TB 64 MB Black Caviar SATA 6.0 Gbps in RAID 0?
Well I just found WD 1tb SATA 6.0 drives for about $130 each with s+h, much more cheaper than one Intel X-25m 160, so would there be any benchmarks on WD drives out there, if not does someone know or have an educated guess on their performance in Raid 0? I got the Gigabyte new UD7 board with 12 gigs of hyperX and a 920, but still running my OS and apps on first gen Raptor so need new drive to replace it..... any suggestions???????????
You understand, don't you, that just because a drive uses a SATA Version 3.0 interface rated at 600MByte/sec, that doesn't mean the drive can actually do anywhere near that speed? The SATA Version 3.0 hard drives aren't any faster than the equivalent SATA Version 2.0 drives.
Do NOT be swayed by comparing transfer rates. Remember, for boot and application load times the drive's access time is much more important than the it's transfer rate. A single SSD will blow away any kind of hard drive in any RAID combination in terms of access times. It won't even be close.
Depends on what you mean by a "bad option". RAID 0 means a greater chance of loosing your data due to a drive crash, and it will prevent you from easily moving your hard drives to a new system if your motherboard dies.
Personally, I don't use RAID 0 because for the kind of work I do the negligible performance improvement just isn't worth the extra risk and administrative hassle.
Again; what is your goal; what are you trying to accomplish?
The difference between a HDD and SSD is extremely huge. One is a cargo truck (HDD) extremely slow acceleration but for simple large trips it'll reach nice speeds once it has going. But if it has to stop often, it will be extremely slow. The SSD is like a helicopter; extremely agile and fast; can be at different places at once.
Of course, a system disk uses the second use case and would be best served by an SSD. A data disk uses the first use case, and would be best served by a 5400rpm HDD.
No harddrive would ever come close to competing with an SSD for the function of a system drive. That's why your comparison raises questions.
vman27m said:Got it, thanks for poiting it out for me, it is easy to get swayed being a new option, but as storage 1TB in Raid 0 wouldnt be a bad option, right?
Are you using any particular programs such as rendering, large databases access that are known to benefit from RAID ?
If not .....While there are applications that do benefit from RAID 0, gaming isn't generally considered as one of them.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.
"We were hoping to see some sort of performance increase in the game loading tests, but the RAID array didn't give us that. While the scores put the RAID-0 array slightly slower than the single drive Raptor II, you should also remember that these scores are timed by hand and thus, we're dealing within normal variations in the "benchmark".
Our Unreal Tournament 2004 test uses the full version of the game and leaves all settings on defaults. After launching the game, we select Instant Action from the menu, choose Assault mode and select the Robot Factory level. The stop watch timer is started right after the Play button is clicked, and stopped when the loading screen disappears. The test is repeated three times with the final score reported being an average of the three. In order to avoid the effects of caching, we reboot between runs. All times are reported in seconds; lower scores, obviously, being better. In Unreal Tournament, we're left with exactly no performance improvement, thanks to RAID-0
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."
http://www.techwarelabs.com/articl [...] ex_6.shtml
".....we did not see an increase in FPS through its use. Load times for levels and games was significantly reduced utilizing the Raid controller and array. As we stated we do not expect that the majority of gamers are willing to purchase greater than 4 drives and a controller for this kind of setup. While onboard Raid is an option available to many users you should be aware that using onboard Raid will mean the consumption of CPU time for this task and thus a reduction in performance that may actually lead to worse FPS. An add-on controller will always be the best option until they integrate discreet Raid controllers with their own memory into consumer level motherboards."
"However, many have tried to justify/overlook those shortcomings by simply saying "It's faster." Anyone who does this is wrong, wasting their money, and buying into hype. Nothing more."
http://computer-drives-storage.sui [...] erformance
"The real-world performance benefits possible in a single-user PC situation is not a given for most people, because the benefits rely on multiple independent, simultaneous requests. One person running most desktop applications may not see a big payback in performance because they are not written to do asynchronous I/O to disks. Understanding this can help avoid disappointment."
http://www.scs-myung.com/v2/index. [...] om_content
"What about performance? This, we suspect, is the primary reason why so many users doggedly pursue the RAID 0 "holy grail." This inevitably leads to dissapointment by those that notice little or no performance gain.....As stated above, first person shooters rarely benefit from RAID 0.__ Frame rates will almost certainly not improve, as they are determined by your video card and processor above all else. In fact, theoretically your FPS frame rate may decrease, since many low-cost RAID controllers (anything made by Highpoint at the tiem of this writing, and most cards from Promise) implement RAID in software, so the process of splitting and combining data across your drives is done by your CPU, which could better be utilized by your game. That said, the CPU overhead of RAID0 is minimal on high-performance processors."
Even the HD manufacturers limit RAID's advantages to very specific applications and non of them involves gaming: