View Full Version : raptor or raid0 ?
ripken204
01-31-2006, 05:37 PM
im not sure what to do. should i get a 74gig raptor or raid0 with 2x80gig hitachi sataII drives ? i will have another large hdd for backing up stuff so thats not an issue.
how much of a difference in random access times do you guys see between a raptor and raid0?
JoeBar
02-05-2006, 03:44 AM
In my opinion a raid 0 config would be a better solution than any single drive.
U can raid 2 36.7 raptors for nearly the price of a single 74gb one and better performance than the hitachi config.
t024484
02-05-2006, 05:43 AM
In my opinion a raid 0 config would be a better solution than any single drive.
U can raid 2 36.7 raptors for nearly the price of a single 74gb one and better performance than the hitachi config.
That's it. Coudn't agree more.
i agree i have 2 36gig raptors in RAID0, best setup i have ever had!!
TheDude
02-05-2006, 06:45 AM
In my opinion a raid 0 config would be a better solution than any single drive.
U can raid 2 36.7 raptors for nearly the price of a single 74gb one and better performance than the hitachi config.
Yep, JoeBar is right on the $. :up:
ripken204
02-05-2006, 07:10 AM
the lowest price for a 36gig raptor ive seen is ~100$ and a 74gig raptor is ~150$ ....
i am thinking if i should get 3x80 hitachi sataII drives in raid0 and 1 200gig or more backup drive
a raid 0 configuration puts more strain on the cpu, i would go for a single raptor!
edit: nevermind!go for raid 0
nn_step
02-05-2006, 03:53 PM
a raid 0 configuration puts more strain on the cpu, i would go for a single raptor!
Dude I would like to see where you heard that bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :stick:
Raid0 all the way..(maybe a nice Controller card while your at it)
t024484
02-06-2006, 01:34 AM
Dude I would like to see where you heard that bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :stick:
Raid0 all the way..(maybe a nice Controller card while your at it)
I tried both.
Raid 0 is the way to go.
Daveb2012
02-06-2006, 01:47 AM
I am curious about this too, for those who have used it. How much of a difference can you see between a single sata 7200rpm HD vs say a raid 0 w/ 2 raptor sata drives? I was thinking maybe loading maps in BF2 I would notice a difference, boot up and shut down times. any thing else? and how much of an improvement too, its an expensive upgrade for minimal results I think.
Dude I would like to see where you heard that bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :stick:
Raid0 all the way..(maybe a nice Controller card while your at it)
sorry!
I miss-qouted someone, a quad zeon server guy said something about putting strain on the available chipset bandwidth, thereby denying some bandwidth to the cpu, making it work under greater pressure, or something like that....
I dont know....
:slap:
nn_step
02-06-2006, 10:00 AM
Might I suggest you edit your first post so that people don't actually pay attention to that bull.. Thank you
ripken204
02-06-2006, 02:24 PM
if it did strain it, which i also dont think that it does, then i think my opteron 170 would definetly be able to handle it
so i guess you all agree to getting raid? 3x80gig hitachi sataII
axion
02-06-2006, 03:02 PM
I thought everyone was agreeing to RAID the 36gb raptors
nn_step
02-06-2006, 05:27 PM
if it did strain it, which i also dont think that it does, then i think my opteron 170 would definetly be able to handle it
so i guess you all agree to getting raid? 3x80gig hitachi sataII
Sounds good to me.. any three 7.2K drives in Raid0 will beat any 10k drive not raided
tonyl
02-07-2006, 04:50 PM
I'll choose raptor 74GB, random access time is much lower. Game loading time is less. If you can, 2 raptor raid0 is best. I tried 2 74gb raptor raid0, couldn't feel difference with sigle 74gb raptor.
OmegaMerc
02-07-2006, 04:59 PM
102$ gets you 250gb wd sata II 16mb cache off of ZZF.
SamHughe
02-07-2006, 11:04 PM
Don't mean to steal the thread but I have a question too. Currently I'm using 4 36.7GB raptors on raid=0. I also have 2 15K 36.7gb Hitachi SCSI drives with 16mb cache and LSI scsi 320 controller. Which setup would be faster?
nn_step
02-07-2006, 11:20 PM
well the Deskstars have a 3.3ms write/Read time when raid0 should be something close to 1.65ms
on the other hand the Raptors have a 5.2ms write/read time when in raid0 should be something close to 1.3ms
which is a theoretical difference of just 0.35ms and the bandwidth comparison has everything to do with how they are hooked up.. Ultimately I would go for the SCSI because I find it easier to maintain and use but for the normal the differences would be marginally different and vary per their tastes
kozietulski
02-10-2006, 03:44 AM
Hi all. lurking here for long time.
well the Deskstars have a 3.3ms access time when raid0 should be something close to 1.65ms
on the other hand the Raptors have a 5.2ms access time when in raid0 should be something close to 1.3ms...
Could you please explain your logic behind above comments? It may be that i just misunderstood you but if you really suggesting access time is getting significantly better by RAIDing drives then it is imho rather big misconception which should not be left uncorrected in forum of as good reputation as this one. :p:
Afaik for typical application/hardware combinations access time is (just slightly) worser in RAID0 then for single drive of given type. Either that or my knowledge regarding hdd/raid issues is non existing :confused:
Cheers.
I'm about raid0'ing raptor 150gbs, just ordered them.
I hope it rocks otherwise I'll bite myself and throw away my creditcard.
nn_step
02-10-2006, 03:41 PM
Hi all. lurking here for long time.
Could you please explain your logic behind above comments? It may be that i just misunderstood you but if you really suggesting access time is getting significantly better by RAIDing drives then it is imho rather big misconception which should not be left uncorrected in forum of as good reputation as this one. :p:
Afaik for typical application/hardware combinations access time is (just slightly) worser in RAID0 then for single drive of given type. Either that or my knowledge regarding hdd/raid issues is non existing :confused:
Cheers.
You might be right about Access time.. but then again Access latency doesn't mean anything when are talking about write/Read latency (time it takes to write/read something to the drive) which cuts in half if you double the number of Read/Write heads.. Which also is a function of bandwidth.. which Adds as you add drives in Raid0.. Meh I'll fix original post...
Adamantine
02-19-2006, 02:28 AM
You might be right about Access time.. but then again Access latency doesn't mean anything when are talking about write/Read latency (time it takes to write/read something to the drive) which cuts in half if you double the number of Read/Write heads.. Which also is a function of bandwidth.. which Adds as you add drives in Raid0.. Meh I'll fix original post...
The number of read/write heads has a negible effect on read/write latency. Doubling the number of read/write heads won't cut the access latency in half, otherwise there would be a noticeable difference between a single platter 7k250 and a 5 platter 7k500 in access latency, which there is pretty much none. The 7k500 does have a slightly higher sequential sustained transfer rate, but that doesn't affect how quickly the drive can begin a read or write. For the most part, HDD latency is only affected by the rotational speed, which in turn has a significant part in how quickly the actuator arm can get into position. In a RAID array, the access latency will be nearly identical as when they configured as a single drive.
In a typical single user, low I/O queue depth system, RAID 0 only gives a performance increase in sequential sustained transfer rates, not access latency. A single user system simply doesn't have a high enough I/O queue depth to take advantage of a RAID 0 array.
You're almost always better off using a single Raptor X/150 than two 74GB Raptor in RAID 0 as you get similar performance without doubling the risk of drive failure while remaining at nearly the same cost.
DriveEuro
02-19-2006, 10:23 AM
Anyone care to post screens as proof that 2x36gb raptors are quicker? Fine, I will.
First pic is the 2x80gb Hitachis... 300+mb/s
Second is 2x36gb raptors.. a measly 190mb/s
Third is 3x80gb hitachis.....
Fourth is 4x80gb hitachis....
Now tell me... which is better for a game? Burst speed or average read?:nono: :rolleyes:
This is all coming from myself who once owned a pair of 36gb Raptors. I now own 3x80gb Hitachis... you couldn't even pay me to use the newest Raptors over what I already have.
Ironiclly, overclockers had a story on this just a couple days ago.
OC Article (http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/) with screenshots on the details this person received on trying out both options.
One_Hertz
02-19-2006, 06:48 PM
Ironiclly, overclockers had a story on this just a couple days ago.
OC Article (http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/) with screenshots on the details this person received on trying out both options.
Actually went through exactly the same thing as the reviewer and completely agree with him...
SkewdLogix
02-19-2006, 09:34 PM
I was thinking of going with a RAID 0 setup with two 74G Raptors but when I started researching what the exact benefits were, I found that for a single user there were no great gains and I decided to use a single raptor and spend the money on upgrading my video cards. Here's a link to an article on the subject. I'd love to hear everyone's feedback especially those of you who are running RAID 0 right now. Is this article reasonable or do you think it's full of :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: ?
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101
I just read the OC article - pretty impressive results for a RAID setup over a single Raptor. My question is how could Anandtech get such different results (mind you, it's a pretty old article). I guess maybe I'll have to buy another Raptor and try it out myself.
eBoy0
02-19-2006, 09:43 PM
Good stuff there driveeuro! I just sold my 74gig raptors to get 4 hitachi's:D
Here is what my raptors on a 128kb strip put out, wish i tryed a 64kb.:(
Movieman
02-19-2006, 09:49 PM
I've got 2-36 gig raptors in Raid0 on a DX3600 rig and all I can say to you is that it is/was the single biggest speed enhancement I ever did. They are on a Promise FastTrak S150TX2plus card..Total cost last may from newegg was $280.00. Cheaper now I think. I went from a single 7200 IDE drive to this but it is a "seeable" difference. Can not recomend it enough. I havn't tried the Hitachi drives like my buddy Driveeuro so I can't comment on those.
Good Luck!
Adamantine
02-19-2006, 10:06 PM
Anyone care to post screens as proof that 2x36gb raptors are quicker? Fine, I will.
First pic is the 2x80gb Hitachis... 300+mb/s
Second is 2x36gb raptors.. a measly 190mb/s
Third is 3x80gb hitachis.....
Fourth is 4x80gb hitachis....
Now tell me... which is better for a game? Burst speed or average read?:nono: :rolleyes:
This is all coming from myself who once owned a pair of 36gb Raptors. I now own 3x80gb Hitachis... you couldn't even pay me to use the newest Raptors over what I already have.
You are refering to the burst rates that are coming from the cache buffer, which is actually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You're also probably comparing a SATA1 drive to a SATA2 drive, in which case the burst rates become interface limited and the deciding factor rather than the drive mechanics itself.
All you have done is manipulate the wording of the data to push your own subjective personal bias.
Furthermore, the 36GB Raptor is also the worst performer of the three available Raptors, which is actually bested by the Hitachi 500GB behemoth and can in some cases equal a 74GB Raptor, but not a Raptor X/150.
An article from some people that actually know how RAID works:
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0
And a more indepth version:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_5.html
RAID helps multi-user applications far more than it does single-user scenarios.
The enthusiasm of the power user community combined with the marketing apparatus of firms catering to such crowds has led to an extraordinarily erroneous belief that striping data across two or more drives yields significant performance benefits for the majority of non-server uses. This could not be farther from the truth! Non-server use, even in heavy multitasking situations, generates lower-depth, highly-localized access patterns where read-ahead and write-back strategies dominate. Theory has told those willing to listen that striping does not yield significant performance benefits. Some time ago, a controlled, empirical test backed what theory suggested. Doubts still lingered- irrationally, many believed that results would somehow be different if the array was based off of an SATA or SCSI interface. As shown above, the results are the same. Save your time, money and data- leave RAID for the servers!
nn_step
02-19-2006, 10:18 PM
And the RAID and single drive fanboys fight again
SamHughe
02-19-2006, 10:57 PM
Ok here's the results from 4x 150gb Raptor. I'd say the system feels quicker than my previous 4x 36.7 gb raptors setup. And from the gaming standpoint, I can say they definetely help fps = smoother gameplay in resolutions previously laggy.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/6050/screenhunter0019my.jpg
And here's how my old setup (4x36gig raptors) did:
http://img279.imageshack.us/img279/1173/hdtach0uf.jpg
DriveEuro
02-20-2006, 09:23 AM
4x of the new raptors must have cost a pretty penny.
One_Hertz
02-20-2006, 07:13 PM
Sam, you should be getting at least double your results. you probably set your striping size wrong... should be 32kb for best performance.
nn_step
02-20-2006, 07:14 PM
4x of the new raptors must have cost a pretty penny.
Yeah about $1,200.. which for that price I would go SCSI
SamHughe
02-21-2006, 08:07 PM
Yeah about $1,200.. which for that price I would go SCSI
I'm willing to return these back and switch to a scsi setup if you can convince me that a scsi adapter on a regular pci slot will provide better performance. Cuz I've been asking this around for a long time but haven't gotten any decent answer yet. I already have a PCI-x scsi adapter (which is backwards compatible with PCI) and two very fine 15K rpm Hitachi Ultrastars (16mb cache plus all the bells and whistles) But if I put those on A8N SLi Premium, I only get around 100mb/s average read.
One_Hertz: You are right! I set the striping size to 128K. I re-format the drives and try it again. Stand by for the update.
BTW I found this from some site called PCMech. I say it's BS what do you guys think?
"Myth 4: RAID and SATA will automatically mean I'll get better performance
I'm sure you've seen the new Serial ATA hard drives and said, "Wow, I really want one of those." Maybe you bought one, justifying the upgrade because Serial ATA runs at 150 or even 300 MB/second, whereas regular IDE only runs at 100 or 133 MB/second. The problem is that those are the theoretical maximums, but no drive will reach those speeds. Drives' burst rates are almost up to 133 MB/second, and some high-end ones have even higher burst rates, but the most important spec, the sustained transfer rate (the maximum speed at which the drive can read data) is only at about 60 MB/second. Real-life speeds will be even lower because data may be fragmented and so the drive will have to look for it on different parts of the drive, slowing transfer speeds down.
RAID 0 is another boondoggle. Many gamers get two drives and hook them up in RAID to get better performance. The problem is that the only times the drives are accessed in games are during loading sequences - and those are CPU-limited. Since RAID uses the CPU more than a single hard drive, game load times will actually be slower using RAID than using a single drive in some games.
On top of that, RAID is terrible for data security - if one drive on the array fails, you lose all your data. One drive is much safer (although you should back up your data either way, which most people don't do).
Those are all the myths and misconceptions I can cover for the moment, but you may see another installment in a few weeks' time. I hope you enjoyed this one!"
nn_step
02-21-2006, 09:01 PM
I'm willing to return these back and switch to a scsi setup if you can convince me that a scsi adapter on a regular pci slot will provide better performance. Cuz I've been asking this around for a long time but haven't gotten any decent answer yet. I already have a PCI-x scsi adapter (which is backwards compatible with PCI) and two very fine 15K rpm Hitachi Ultrastars (16mb cache plus all the bells and whistles) But if I put those on A8N SLi Premium, I only get around 100mb/s average read.
But you don't understand that there are PCIe SCSI cards.. and then provided you don't mind the lack of SLi.. you will have a beast of a Raid0 setup
SamHughe
02-21-2006, 11:51 PM
But you don't understand that there are PCIe SCSI cards.. and then provided you don't mind the lack of SLi.. you will have a beast of a Raid0 setup
Himm...I think I'm gonna keep the SLI. It's good to be able to play games in 19x12 res. ;)
I'm willing to return these back and switch to a scsi setup if you can convince me that a scsi adapter on a regular pci slot will provide better performance. Cuz I've been asking this around for a long time but haven't gotten any decent answer yet. I already have a PCI-x scsi adapter (which is backwards compatible with PCI) and two very fine 15K rpm Hitachi Ultrastars (16mb cache plus all the bells and whistles) But if I put those on A8N SLi Premium, I only get around 100mb/s average read.
One_Hertz: You are right! I set the striping size to 128K. I re-format the drives and try it again. Stand by for the update.
BTW I found this from some site called PCMech. I say it's BS what do you guys think?
I sure hope it is. :-(
Just installed 2x Raptor 150GB but haven't had time to test them yet. Something is really weird with the comp.
(Link in sig)
nn_step
02-22-2006, 08:55 AM
Himm...I think I'm gonna keep the SLI. It's good to be able to play games in 19x12 res. ;)
So when Quad PCIe comes out you would be willing to convert?:D
SamHughe
02-22-2006, 10:40 PM
Nope! I don't like how things turned out. I'll switch back to 64K stripping size.
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8153/raptor49ku.jpg
SamHughe
02-24-2006, 11:56 AM
Wow! I set up the strip site to 16K and I got Average read 290 MB/s !!!
Sorry new install, no screenie. I wonder what happens if I reduce the strip size even further down to 4K?
Edit: Here's the ss:
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6538/hdtach2872nn.jpg
I know this is probably just an illusion but even my internet seems to have gotten faster.
nn_step
02-24-2006, 12:02 PM
why don't you try and tell us how it turns out...
SamHughe
02-24-2006, 09:54 PM
More results.
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5595/sisandactivewindow1nt.jpg
Is it possible to change from whatever to for an example 16k without reinstalling everything? Like, on the fly?
nn_step
02-25-2006, 08:17 AM
Is it possible to change from whatever to for an example 16k without reinstalling everything? Like, on the fly?
Only if you have an extremely good Raid Card..
it is called Strip level migration...
and all my favorite cards support it...
*snip*
BTW I found this from some site called PCMech. I say it's BS what do you guys think?
"Myth 4:
*snip*
I hope you enjoyed this one!"
This guys sounds like he really doesnt know what he is talking about.
Just my opinion.
Just thought I would share this update/new article on the Overclockers front page. 2nd article/update from the previous link.
Linkie (http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/index03.asp)
quote from above with link to 1st article.
*snip*
OC Article (http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/)
*snip*
topaimz
02-28-2006, 10:07 PM
Can some one PM me with which Hitachi HDs you guys are talking about that better then RAID0 2 x 74gb Raptors...
Im in the process of buying a fast HD for my OS and often accessed files...
Was thinking of RAID0 2 x 150gb RAptors....
Anyways, pre-thanks for the PM on which HD would be good :)
Can some one PM me with which Hitachi HDs you guys are talking about that better then RAID0 2 x 74gb Raptors...
Im in the process of buying a fast HD for my OS and often accessed files...
Was thinking of RAID0 2 x 150gb RAptors....
Anyways, pre-thanks for the PM on which HD would be good :)
Using raid0(64k stripes) 150GB Raptors and getting ~240MBs and apperantly it would be even fast with 16k striping if you read up a bit in this thread.
This is not average read spead tho, it's burst..
Like in this picture From above (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1300031&postcount=43)
Dont remember average read speed :-( It's fast as hell tho.
mursaat
03-01-2006, 03:13 AM
Only if you have an extremely good Raid Card..
it is called Strip level migration...
and all my favorite cards support it...nvidia "card" sports it? :D If so, I will try with 16 and 4k to see what happens with my 2x36 raptors
nn_step
03-01-2006, 06:32 AM
nvidia "card" sports it? :D If so, I will try with 16 and 4k to see what happens with my 2x36 raptors
no nVidia does not support it.. in fact no onboard raid (except maybe tyan or Iwill) have raid level migration..
mursaat
03-01-2006, 06:51 AM
Then I'll wait till the next fresh install
nn_step
03-01-2006, 06:56 AM
or you could get a controller card that supports raid migration..
and use it to restrip your array..
and then just put it back on your board for testing..
Jokester_wild
03-01-2006, 07:25 AM
whats with all the Raid 0 loving it does nothing for gaming and only really is needed in things like videoediting or similar but then you might as well got raid 3 with Three drives which is much better.
Hasnt anyone here ever had one drive fail under raid 0 ?! You LOSE everything not going to get it back nah uh!.
If you want the marginal gain from raid 0 go with raid 3 get the extra drive you will be much better off.
nn_step
03-01-2006, 08:10 AM
whats with all the Raid 0 loving it does nothing for gaming and only really is needed in things like videoediting or similar but then you might as well got raid 3 with Three drives which is much better.
Hasnt anyone here ever had one drive fail under raid 0 ?! You LOSE everything not going to get it back nah uh!.
If you want the marginal gain from raid 0 go with raid 3 get the extra drive you will be much better off.
except you forget that Raid3 is slower than a single drive.. because its performace is choked by a single drive..
Raid5 is a far better suggestion for 3 drives;)
mursaat
03-01-2006, 10:42 AM
whats with all the Raid 0 loving it does nothing for gaming and only really is needed in things like videoediting or similar but then you might as well got raid 3 with Three drives which is much better.
Hasnt anyone here ever had one drive fail under raid 0 ?! You LOSE everything not going to get it back nah uh!.
If you want the marginal gain from raid 0 go with raid 3 get the extra drive you will be much better off.That's why I use the 2x36 raptors with 10gb for S.O. and the rest for Games and Benchmarks. Everything I want to keep "safe" is in my 200 or 250gb caviars :D
I agree with nn (again, I'm starting to worry ;) ) raid5 is the best option for 3 drives.
And honestly, you know how many times I restart every day? Having windows ready in <10secs really helps when changing BIOS options or in system hangs :p:
or you could get a controller card that supports raid migration..
and use it to restrip your array..
and then just put it back on your board for testing..That's easier said than done in Spain :fact:
nn_step
03-01-2006, 10:55 AM
Really?
Finding a half descent PCI Raid card is that bad?
All you really need to do is install the raid card drivers..
Connect the drives to the raid card and change the settings..
it is really really easy..
Jokester_wild
03-02-2006, 02:10 AM
I was thinking of raid 5 got the name wrong should have checked ah well.
mursaat
03-02-2006, 04:24 AM
Really?
Finding a half descent PCI Raid card is that bad?
All you really need to do is install the raid card drivers..
Connect the drives to the raid card and change the settings..
it is really really easy..Well I do not intend to buy a pci card to only change the stripe size, so I thought of borrow it from somebody. That's the hard thing.
nn_step
03-02-2006, 09:02 AM
Well I do not intend to buy a pci card to only change the stripe size, so I thought of borrow it from somebody. That's the hard thing.
Very true.. or you could just buy one and have it to use for the next couple years..