Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Beginners advice on RAID0?

Tags:
  • NAS / RAID
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
January 31, 2011 3:02:07 PM

okay ..there are two areas in computer tech that I am totally in the dark about ..CrossFire/SLI and RAID ..
so ..if I were to use 2 1tb spin point F3s in RAID0 I would still have 2 TB of storage but at 2x performance ?? ..how do I set these drives up? ..in the BIOS ..my mobo supports RAID0 ..but I have no idea how its done ..installing Windows and software and games would be the same as with a single drive right ?? ..do raid drives have frequent failures?? ..please help ..I'm thinking of getting a new rig with raid0 storage ..and I dunno anything bout it ..except Redundant Array of Independent Drives :p 

More about : beginners advice raid0

a c 353 G Storage
January 31, 2011 3:32:56 PM

(1) Yes you add the two drives so 1 + 1 = 2 TBs
(2) Yes you increase the possibility of a failure - If one drive has say a 10 % chance of failure then it doubles to 20 % - Iv used Raid0 BEFORE SATA was invented and not had a failure, still running an Old win xp built before 2000.
(3) Raid0 only improves Sequencial read writes, and it is not 2x, it is less than 2x the performance of a single drive.

My addvice, if you want a GOOD performance boost go with a single SSD for your operating system and programs. It will give you about a 20 -> 40 times performance boost over a raid0 mechanical HDD> - Reason, an SSD also improves random small file reads and writes and Access time drops to about 0.1 mSec (compared to about 12 mSec for mechanical HDDs). These two factors are what improves performance, and Raid 0 will not improve small file random read/writes nor access time.

Raid0 will improve editing of large files that are seq in nature, ie .VOB (DVD files) that are typically 1 gig, Blu-ray files that can be up to 40 gigs in a single file, and large spreedsheet/cad/cam files.

Setting up a raid zero is rather simple, enter the raid set up in bios (Mine is Cntr I - check MB manual). Just follow steps (1) select size (I normally select a size smaller than the whole size), then select the strip size. - Repeat untill the whole disk is set up.
Ie set first array to say 200 -> 500 Gigs. This will be for the operating system and programs (If you do not go with an SSD) then set 2nd array to say 500 Gigs (this will be for "small files size files) - for both of these use default stripe size. then create a 3rd array using the remader of the disk and set the stipe size to a large value- this will be for Large files.
January 31, 2011 3:46:38 PM

If you care about your data, you want to go with a RAID 1. If you just want performance, and do not care about stability; you would want to go with a RAID 0.

RAID 1, The exact same data is on both drives, if a drive dies then you can just install a new drive, and then rebuild the RAID array. The write time is a little slower, but the read times is better than a single drive.

AID 0 (No Redundancy) you read and write speeds will be faster than a RAID 1, and MUCH faster than a single drive. However if a drive dies EVERYTHING on the drives is gone, there is no hope for getting the data back its gone for good.

I have been running RAID's (0, 1, 5), for a long time, until last year I have never broken an array (So I normally go with a AID 0...). Last year I lost 3 drives within two months, in a AID 0... 1.75 TB's, needless to say I was angry, but Redundancy saved me because I always backed up to an external drive aswell as my NAS... It boils down to how important is your data?

CrossFire and SLI are kind of the same basic idea, multiple GPU's working as one. think of it as, GPU 0 renders 3 frames, while GPU 1 is working on the next 3. GPU 1 spits out its frames, while GPU 0 is working on the next 3 frames... and they keep switching back and forth back and forth, so it appears you are getting a better frame rate.

Hopefully that helps...
Related resources
January 31, 2011 6:20:31 PM

Hi,

I am wondering which is better for editing Full HD AVCHD format vid footage. 2 hdd on RAID 0 or a solid state hdd.

I am also wondering which is better for hd editing between 2 hdd RAID 0 and a 10,000rpm raptor drive!
a b G Storage
January 31, 2011 6:43:51 PM

The SSD will give you some very impressive speed, but to get to the storage capacity you might need, the mechanical drives in Raid-0 will probably be more cost effective.

The Raid-0 for some fast performance 7,200 rpm drives will blow the doors off a raptor. In todays market and environment, forget about the raptor, and I've owned one happily for years!!!
January 31, 2011 10:21:57 PM

wow !! ..two 7200rpm drives outperform single far more expensive veloceraptor ..?? ..cool :)  :) 
and uh ..I don't have to set it up that way right ?? ..I can create different drive partitions right ..just asking ..cause you seemed so precise about it ..?
January 31, 2011 10:29:20 PM

what happens ifi have three or four drives running on raid0 ?? ..would i see a proportionate improvement in performance?? ..and how would I add another drive to a raid setup (during an upgrade maybe a year or two later ?
January 31, 2011 10:33:18 PM

tkrl26 said:
If you care about your data, you want to go with a RAID 1. If you just want performance, and do not care about stability; you would want to go with a RAID 0.

RAID 1, The exact same data is on both drives, if a drive dies then you can just install a new drive, and then rebuild the RAID array. The write time is a little slower, but the read times is better than a single drive.

AID 0 (No Redundancy) you read and write speeds will be faster than a RAID 1, and MUCH faster than a single drive. However if a drive dies EVERYTHING on the drives is gone, there is no hope for getting the data back its gone for good.

I have been running RAID's (0, 1, 5), for a long time, until last year I have never broken an array (So I normally go with a AID 0...). Last year I lost 3 drives within two months, in a AID 0... 1.75 TB's, needless to say I was angry, but Redundancy saved me because I always backed up to an external drive aswell as my NAS... It boils down to how important is your data?

CrossFire and SLI are kind of the same basic idea, multiple GPU's working as one. think of it as, GPU 0 renders 3 frames, while GPU 1 is working on the next 3. GPU 1 spits out its frames, while GPU 0 is working on the next 3 frames... and they keep switching back and forth back and forth, so it appears you are getting a better frame rate.

Hopefully that helps...


thanks ..
I don't have too important data ..
and uh ..maybe I shouldn't have said completely in the dark ..I have reasonable understanding of what CF and SLI do ..just not the specifics . and how to set a cf system up ..but ill check it up later ..maybe be doing it in 2-3 yrs. so later ..thanks anyways :)  :) 
February 1, 2011 7:09:47 AM

what happens ifi have three or four drives running on raid0 ?? ..would i see a proportionate improvement in performance?? ..and how would I add another drive to a raid setup (during an upgrade maybe a year or two later ?

I wanna no this too!
February 1, 2011 9:29:48 AM

lol ..you copied my reply Haha :p 
February 1, 2011 11:57:28 AM

If you have 3 or 4 drives you need them when you build the array, you can not add to the array later, without loosing all data and starting over.

Do your self a favor and buy an SSD, one SSD is way faster then 2 drives in raid 0.
February 1, 2011 12:18:14 PM

Well ra eu gann pay for a ssd. 100 quid for a 60gb i dont think so!
a b G Storage
February 1, 2011 12:19:12 PM

CraigHarrison said:
lol ..you copied my reply Haha :p 


There are a lot of misconceptions about RAID and how it can improve your performance.
For the average user, gamer, RAID 0 offers very, very little benefit. Your PC will boot a little faster, levels will load a little faster, that is about it.
Years ago, when drives were slow as molasses in January, AND memory cost $40 a megabyte, putting a couple or more drives in RAID 0 did indeed realize some pretty big performance gains. However, even then it may have been less about performance most of the time, and more about just having the storage space since an average drive was a lot smaller than modern drives are today. Now, today, a single drive is faster than 3 drives in RAID were only a few years ago. You now have 8 gig of memory instead of only 8 megabytes, so nearly entire programs can be loaded into RAM memory, greatly reducing the amount of time needed reading from the hard drive.
RAID 0 will give you in theory double the sustained transfer rate of 1 drive. Access times however start to degrade as you start clumping drives together. The average person doing normal things, and even gaming, needs to read small amounts of information quickly, what you are looking for here is very low access time. If you are doing something that requires moving huge amounts of data at a time, then RAID 0 will really start to show benefits. Like when your PC first starts, or you load that next level in the game you are playing, or you are encoding that 2 hour HD movie.
RAID is never a backup of any shape or kind for your data. Most people who run RAID understand this, if they don't, they WILL lose their data eventually. It won't be because of a hardware failure, it will be because they will do something during their tinkering that will break the array. RAID 1 is not a backup either. RAID1 is a provision for redundancy. Redundancy means that if a drive fails, the PC will remain up and running on the other drive. But, with RAID 1, if you delete a file, it is gone on both drives. If you get a virus, it affects both drives. If you download malware or spyware, it is on both drives. This is not a backup and your data is in jeopardy.

In short, if it's speed you need, I would look to a solid state drive. RAID is fun to mess with, and I have used it for years, but the benefits are just way over rated for the vast majority of people.
February 1, 2011 12:26:36 PM

How about for Video editing!

Does it offer benefits for editing large HD vid files. Shouldent it improve the read time of the files and therefore it wont drop frames when you edit it and go all jerky.
a c 353 G Storage
February 1, 2011 5:04:12 PM

Raid0 will improve working with Large files that are sequencial in nature, is a typical dot VOB dvd file is 1 gigs. just not real boost to small operating system/program files - Note over Half of the files on a disk for the operating system and programs will be under 16 K. (NOTE 1 gig = 250 K clusters @ 4k/cluster and about 83 K stripes @128 K stripes - Hopefully I didn't blow my math)

What jt said is correct - I've been using raid0 since 2000 (ON IDE drives). While raid0 will on HDDs will never come close to an SSD for op/program disk (Partition). You can get very good performance gain for large file work with raid0.

Best of both worlds - SSD for op & programs and a Pair of 1 TB drives in Raid0. WITH ONE cavet. Use technique called short stroke. When you go to create your array, JUST use 500 -> 750 Gigs. DO NOT set up an array on the remaining space.
Short stoking will reduce access time from about 12 mSec to approx 9.5 mSec. (nowheres near 0.1 for an SSD), BUT 500 -> 750 gig SSD can put a big dent in wallet. Anly disadvantage is that you loose 60 -> 75 % of storage space.

And Yess I've confermed this with two 650 gig WD blacks, My access time dropped to 9.5 mSec. (This was before I could afford/justify an SSD - 3 x higher than what they are now.)
!