RAID and Gaming

What is the Best configuration for RAID if you are solely using the computer for gaming? (Alright I admit I shop for clothes online and write a paper for school here and there :p: )

Currently I have a RAID 0 configuration my friend helped me with. We set up 2
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST380817AS 80GB Serial ATA 7200RPM Hard Drive w/8MB Buffer
in RAID 0.

I was wondering... would I notice gaming improvement more with which of the following:

1-No Change
2-2 10,000 SATA Drives in RAID 0
3-3 of the same Drives above in RAID 0
4-Some other RAID configuration, i.e. 1,3,5
5-2 Seagate 15,000 RPM Cheeta's in RAID 0
6-Other

Sorry I don't know too much about this, and most of the sites I have gone to can be a little too confusing to me :(

Unfortunately that is impossible to say.

Generally program startup is better served with RAID-1 or 10 instead of 0, or to a lesser degree raid-5 is also better at this than raid-0. Because raid-0 does not speed up small reads after random seeks which is what mos prgram startup is made from.

However, some smart games have organized big data files (e.g. map packs, texture packs) in a way that they actually do read them in a linear manner and then they get a substancial speedup out of raid-0.

Of course, after startup it won't matter for a game unless is game is braindead (such as LO:MAC) or if you don't have enough RAM.

My personal recommendation is not to worry about this too much and just get faster drives instead of doing speculation about RAID modes. You can only pick the right RAID mode (and striping size etc.) by actually testing them with your games of choice. You can make it faster by just buying faster drives without testing and fiddling.

Okay, that seems to help a bit. Let me ask this then, would I see an actual performance increase in a game of a 15,000 RPM hard drives over my 7200's? Particularly in a game environment where the areas are loaded as you get to them, i.e. Oblivion.

When it comes to raids that would work for gaming / performance I would say you got basicly 2 options: raid 0 and raid 5.

Raid 0 would be a little faster then raid 5, but raid 5 got ALOT better security for your data. I dont know how much you know about the different raid types, but lets take a quick look at those 2 just to make sure we are on the same page. Hope you dont take this the wrong way, just want to make sure we are on same page.

Raid 0:
Disks are all put in one pool of disks, that the OS looks upon as one disk.The OS writes to and read from the 'disk', and the controller that the disks are connected to splits the data and (in a perfect world) read and write data from and to all of the disks at same time. This means each disk need to spend less time pr operation, and this will cut down on the time each read/write takes. Problem with this setup is that if one disk fails, all data is lost.

Raid 5:
To make it simple you can say this work as raid 0, BUT and its a big but, this raid will also save controll data, meaning if one disk fails the system can still work (but slower). So you got time to swap the defect disk out, and your data is still ok. The minimum number of disks for this is 3, also with a 3 disk setup you will 'loose' disk space equal to 1 disk. So if you got 3 disks of each 100 gb, you will have 200 gb disk space. So the problem here for most home users its a bit costly solution, and that kind of data protection is normally not needed for home users.

Also an issue when it comes to raids are the controllers, most onboard raid controllers are just not good enough if you first want a speedy raid and spend money on it, you need a dedicated raid controller card. So my conclusion (also for myself when getting a new comp), is that raid isnt all that usefull for a home user that dont want to spend more money that they need to on a comp. If you really want a fast disk solution, instead get the Raptor disks that are faster (but smaller) then normal IDE disks (gets closer to SCSI disk speeds). And yes, I think you would see a difference, but I dont think its worth the extra money. Maybe its worth having a 15000 disk as the C drive, which will help with swap file speeds. But if the game loads alot of NEW textures all the time it wouldnt help again since game data would not be on same disk. Sure if you want to spend money on it get all 15000 raptor disks, but its like twice the cost of normal ones, and as long as you dont play online games and even in a pro league, I dont see the cost being worth it.


So what I would do if I were you is this (what I am gonna do on my next comp):
- get 2 disks (or more, but dont see the need for more then 2, who really needs more then 500gb available 'online' at all times?! get a burner instead...)

- if you want to make several partitions or not on each disk is up to you, but I dont think there is a performance problem any longer with big partitions and Windows XP (please correct me if I am wrong)

- on the first disk make 2 partitions: C: + 1 more for rest of the space, give C 15 Gb or so (this will ensure alot of space for programs, and at same time space for stupid installers like Battlefield 2 Special Forces and similar stupid installers that wants to unpack several gigs on the C partition)

- making one separat partion for C also ensures you can just wipe the whole C partion if you need to reinstall without also wiping other data. Also with setting it to a 'small' size of 15 gb or so also ensures no other partition will be that small so you dont eccidently wipe the wrong partition if you reinstall

- on the second disk make one or more partitions (2 maybe, 1 for games and 1 for multimedia files etc)

- then set the swap file to a static size and put it on C disk, but on the other partition, not the C partition (the rule of thumb here is set swap file to 1.5 x the size of your ram BUT BUT BUT, there is a roof of how much ram Windows XP can adress, and its around 4 GB, and if I am not wrong this also includes gfx card memory, so I would have 2 GB ram + set the swap file to 1.5 gb or even maybe 1 gb static size. statis size on the swap file also helps slightly with speed vs dynamic size)

- Note: but if you put the swap file not on the C partition remember that if you reinstall you need to show system files so you can delete it after reinstall, dont think the new install will use the old swap file, but not 100% sure

- try to set the swap file on the other partition as the first thing you put on that partition, so it dont get fragmented

- do NOT put your games on same disk as C, but it on the other disk. You want C + swap file on one physical disk and your games on another physical disk, so you will get 2 disks to be able to read game files and swap 'at same time'

Hope this helps

JH_man
norway

Sorry, that a little inaccurate:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

Raid 0 would be a little faster then raid 5, but raid 5 got ALOT better security for your data. I dont know how much you know about the different raid types, but lets take a quick look at those 2 just to make sure we are on the same page. Hope you dont take this the wrong way, just want to make sure we are on same page.

---

Raid-0 has negative safety (= worse than single disk), raid-5 has positive safety (= better than single disk) is a better way to put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

Raid 0:
Disks are all put in one pool of disks, that the OS looks upon as one disk.The OS writes to and read from the 'disk', and the controller that the disks are connected to splits the data and (in a perfect world) read and write data from and to all of the disks at same time. This means each disk need to spend less time pr operation, and this will cut down on the time each read/write takes. Problem with this setup is that if one disk fails, all data is lost.

---

Yeah but you forget to mention that there are patterns that are not sped up by raid-0 at all, such as small reads after random seeks.

Raid-1 can speed up that pattern, and that pattern is what happens a lot when starting most programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

Raid 5:
To make it simple you can say this work as raid 0, BUT and its a big but, this raid will also save controll data, meaning if one disk fails the system can still work (but slower). So you got time to swap the defect disk out, and your data is still ok. The minimum number of disks for this is 3, also with a 3 disk setup you will 'loose' disk space equal to 1 disk. So if you got 3 disks of each 100 gb, you will have 200 gb disk space. So the problem here for most home users its a bit costly solution, and that kind of data protection is normally not needed for home users.

---

Software raid-5 works just fine. Stay away from onboard software raid for any kind of safety raid.

The main disadvantage is that reads are sped up compared to single disk but writes are at most as fast as single disk, often slower. Although not an issue with modern CPUs and just a bunch of 7200 disks, CPU usage for writes can be substancial under the wrong circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

Also an issue when it comes to raids are the controllers, most onboard raid controllers are just not good enough if you first want a speedy raid and spend money on it, you need a dedicated raid controller card.

---

This is not entirely true.

Existing onboard sata RAID solutions get one thing right: performance in raid-0. It is pretty fast as far as I have seen benchmark (I don't use it so I didn't measure myself).

In no event would I use onboard sata raid for any kind of safety raid.

And from what I have seen you never get the speedup that you would expect out of raid-1 with onboard sata raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

So my conclusion (also for myself when getting a new comp), is that raid isnt all that usefull for a home user that dont want to spend more money that they need to on a comp. If you really want a fast disk solution, instead get the Raptor disks that are faster (but smaller) then normal IDE disks (gets closer to SCSI disk speeds).

---

That is good advice. Just buying faster disks gets rid of all the headache above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

And yes, I think you would see a difference, but I dont think its worth the extra money. Maybe its worth having a 15000 disk as the C drive, which will help with swap file speeds.

---

If you want good performance you have to have enough RAM to never use the swapfile in a significant manner anyway.

But DO NOT run without a swapfile, it slows you down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

But if the game loads alot of NEW textures all the time it wouldnt help again since game data would not be on same disk. Sure if you want to spend money on it get all 15000 raptor disks, but its like twice the cost of normal ones, and as long as you dont play online games and even in a pro league, I dont see the cost being worth it.

---

Games speed depends on harddrive speed only at startup, so it doesn't really matter how serious you are playing.

For game startup it is cearly not the better solution to have boot drive and game drive separate. If the game load sequentially (e.g. Call of Duty) then a raid-0 over the two drives is better.

The reason is that while you load the textures and maps you do not access the OS drive. So the OS drive is idle and you get zero advantage out of having it on it's own disk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

- then set the swap file to a static size and put it on C disk, but on the other partition, not the C partition (the rule of thumb here is set swap file to 1.5 x the size of your ram BUT BUT BUT, there is a roof of how much ram Windows XP can adress, and its around 4 GB, and if I am not wrong this also includes gfx card memory, so I would have 2 GB ram + set the swap file to 1.5 gb or even maybe 1 gb static size. statis size on the swap file also helps slightly with speed vs dynamic size)

---

That's entirely inaccurate. The 4 GB limit does not apply to total physical memory as define RAM+paging space. If you have 3 GB of RAM and 12 GB of swapspace you can run 15 programs with 1 GB each on 32 bit XP.

Static size is good advice.

However, you should have one paging area on every drive, as I explained earlier.

Overall, none of this matters. If you want a smooth computer you have to have enough RAM to never make serious use of swapspace after the OS and applications are warmed up.

It is far better to run 4 GB of medium-speed RAM than running 2 GB of high-speed RAM if you ever touch the swapspace. And even if you don't touch it it is pften better to have 4 GB slower RAM than 2 GB faster RAM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

- do NOT put your games on same disk as C, but it on the other disk. You want C + swap file on one physical disk and your games on another physical disk, so you will get 2 disks to be able to read game files and swap 'at same time'

---

Overall, this is not sound advice.

Game loading for games that load sequentially is substancially sped up by raid-0, and as I explained earlier the separate location of boot filesystem and swapspace doesn't buy you anything on a machine that is basically single application (= game).

Hmm, maybe I should explain how I currently have my hard drives configured.

Right now I have 2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST380817AS 80GB Serial ATA 7200RPM Hard Drive w/8MB Buffer in RAID 0. I also have a 60GB ATA hard drive where all my backup information, and the "My Documents" folder sits. This also is the ONLY drive with a page file, it is 4GB in size. I have PC3200 Corair RAM, 2x1GB Dual Channel, but I will be changing this as I am re-doing my computer (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=109358). I have 1 Partition across my Raid drives, with windows and all my programs on that drive, since as I mentioned the 3rd drive is all my 'storage'.

So sounds like, if I am understanding correctly, the following are true:
1- Partition the RAID drives with ~15GB for the system.
2- Put a Page File on ALL partitions/drives
3- Faster drives won't be noticable in actual gameplay, even load-as-you go games.

That accurate interpetation?

Correct, but of course that doesn't mean you can skip two things:

1) you need to decide whether raid-0 is worth the risk

2) you may or may not have games that are sped up by raid-0

<<
However, you should have one paging area on every drive, as I explained earlier.
>>

Cannot see you say anything about this in this thread. Also I would like to see some kind of test or similar that says its faster to have one paging area on every drive. If such tests could not be shown (and prove a real advantage, not just a millisec here and there), I would never do this, for several reasons.

<<
Game loading for games that load sequentially is substancially sped up by raid-0, and as I explained earlier the separate location of boot filesystem and swapspace doesn't buy you anything on a machine that is basically single application (= game).
>>

I am talking about just single disks in my advice list, I say get 2 disks, and I dont mention raids. When you use single disks its more or less garanteed that swap on one disk and game on other will be the fastest since both disks can read/write at 'the same time', instead of fighting for the disk access. Also not everyone is playing offline games that load a lvl and then you play, most online games dont work like that. With most online games there is a big amout of swap file usage and game data loading all the time, which results in alot of non-sequentially operations.

Another area where its a big advantage to have 2 physical disks is when you either want to zip/pack or unpack big files or packages like typical winrar makes. The fastest here would be to read from one disk and write to the another. Same goes for installations where either the game/program is on one disk and installed on another, or even on cd/dvd but the installer first unpacks the files to disk (typically done to C: partition). I would therefor have my games disk on another physical disk then the C: is on. Also reasons why I am going for 2 single physical disks in my next setup, and no king of raid.

The only reason I would have to go for a raid solution, is if I were given a very good raid controller and disks, and if so it would be a raid 5 with hotswap. HP come to mind here as their hardware kicks ass. And if I were give the money to do it, I would rather get raptor disks and run them as single disks.

<<
3- Faster drives won't be noticable in actual gameplay, even load-as-you go games.
>>

Disagree strongly! In online games like Dark Age of Camelot that I have played for like 5 years now, I can garantee you that faster disks will help noticable. If you dont some how are able to run the whole game from RAM (which you are not with todays games). There are so big amount of textures in the game, every time you run into a group of enemies your biggest problem will be load lagg due to loading/swaping textures. This will also work for other games that have alot of texture loading along the way. Havent played Oblivion, but I am pretty sure there is a big amount of texture loading as you go along there.

And why uOpt is saying software raid is ok is beyond me, one serious software error and the whole raid CAN get corrupt. It will also be slower then hardware raids. I would personally never run one. Neither do I understand what he mean by onboard software raid. Either the raid is software, meaning its all controlled by a program that is running, or its hardware (onboard or on own controller board) and therefor run by the hardware chip controller, meaning its hardware. This is the only nitpicking I will stretch myself to do, since he is kinda contradicting himself here. But not big deal, I think most understand what he means. And no offense intended uOpt, but you pick alot on my post, so I poke you this one time.

I have made my comments here both based on what I know about the issues, but also made based on I have discussed the very same questions you have here Natalia with other technical educated friends of mine, a few months back. And I came to the solution I highlighted here for you; I am going for 2 single disks (read first post for rest of the details on how I will set them up).

But anyway, I have given my advice, and dont intend to use more time picking on other ppls post as long as its not directly wrong. Either you take the advice or you dont, I have at least given you a working solution that I can garantee you will work very well no matter what games you play.

JH_man

How about this:

Keep my 2 7200 RPM Drives in Raid 0, and my old ATA as a backup.

Then add a super fast single drive, 15000 RPM, w/o RAID, and install only games on it. Would that be a good way to go?

4 Drives total:
2 RAID System/Misc Stuff
1 Super Fast Game drive
1 Backup drive

With that solution, I would only have to buy one relatively small drive since only three or four games would ever be on it at a single time.

What do you think?

That would work. Also looking at the other thread about SLI I would also suggest you to get a Raptor disk as I have also said before, not he Cheetah.

Also remember the cheetah is SCSI, so it will get alot more expensive then the WD Raptor (fastest IDE drive around as I know) since you need also a good SCSI controll card. But of course if you got the money the SCSI is the fastest one, but if I dont remember wrong the scsi disks will also be more noisy and produce more heat...but dont arrest me on this.

Also take a look at this site and its reviews if you dont have seen it already:
http://www.storagereview.com/

JH_man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

How about this:

Keep my 2 7200 RPM Drives in Raid 0, and my old ATA as a backup.

Then add a super fast single drive, 15000 RPM, w/o RAID, and install only games on it. Would that be a good way to go?

4 Drives total:
2 RAID System/Misc Stuff
1 Super Fast Game drive
1 Backup drive

With that solution, I would only have to buy one relatively small drive since only three or four games would ever be on it at a single time.

What do you think?

---

I dunno. the cost of SCSI controller and disk, apart from heat/noise makes it a questionable choice compared to, say getting two SATA 10,000 and raid-0ing them.

What you need to find out is which of your games that has annoying startup times is sped up by raid-0, which is sped up by (good, not onboard sata junk) raid-1 and which is only sped up by faster drives.

I think you will find that the amount of games that have all of
- annoying startup time
- will not improve on raid-0
- show an improvement of 15,000 rpm over 10,000 rom
is very small.

If you don't have them already 4 GB of RAM are certainly the overall better investment.

Can you please properly quote?

I don't like what I said being labeled as somebody else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

<<
However, you should have one paging area on every drive, as I explained earlier.
>>

Cannot see you say anything about this in this thread. Also I would like to see some kind of test or similar that says its faster to have one paging area on every drive. If such tests could not be shown (and prove a real advantage, not just a millisec here and there), I would never do this, for several reasons.

---

It is obvious that paging area should be placed on all drives.

And that is particularly true for machines that usually only focus on one application.

The paging area is only used when the OS needs to find new pages and when there are no readonly pages mapped and filesystem buffer cache pages that are obviously droppable. Only anonymous mapped pages and modified copy-on-write pages are even written into swapspace.

At the time that this happens the OS just admitted that it is in deep trouble.

The system is practically stalling when this happens unless you are lucky enough to have several other processes running that can continue to use CPU time without touching an pages not currently resident.

Since the system is stalling anyway, you must seek to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

Moving a bunch of random pages out to disk is painstaikingly obviously much faster when they are distributed to as many disks as possible.

I don't really know what the question here is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

<<
Game loading for games that load sequentially is substancially sped up by raid-0, and as I explained earlier the separate location of boot filesystem and swapspace doesn't buy you anything on a machine that is basically single application (= game).
>>

I am talking about just single disks in my advice list, I say get 2 disks, and I dont mention raids. When you use single disks its more or less garanteed that swap on one disk and game on other will be the fastest since both disks can read/write at 'the same time', instead of fighting for the disk access.

---

That's a misunderstanding.

If swapspace is currently being written to then there will be no reading of data for the game.

The swapspace is written to to make room for new pages to fill by the game's data, so the game is stalled until the lack of allocatable pages is resolved.

Normally, your advice is correct: you want to put reading things and writing things on different disks.

And you would normally have the writes delayed by the filesystem buffer cache, which means if you don't have them on a separate disk from your reading then you will be "echoes" of disturbing disk activity for an extended period of time.

However, this is not true in the case of writing to swap, since writing to swap means there is a stall. Also, during this situation, which is a "short of memory" situation you will not see the filesystem buffer cache used much, because that would take memory.

So, in summary, while it is a good idea to put reads and writes on different disks, for swapspace it doesn't matter. Swapspace should be on all disks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

Also not everyone is playing offline games that load a lvl and then you play, most online games dont work like that. With most online games there is a big amout of swap file usage and game data loading all the time, which results in alot of non-sequentially operations.

---

Big usage of swap space? That shouldn't happen.

If it happens, then forget about faster disks or fancy raids. What you need is more memory.

I take your word that the games continue loading during play, I also have some games that constantly mess around with files. But that doesn't change the fact that the proper fix for swapping is more memory, not mucking with the disks. If you can't solve it by more memory, then swapspace on as many disks as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

Another area where its a big advantage to have 2 physical disks is when you either want to zip/pack or unpack big files or packages like typical winrar makes. The fastest here would be to read from one disk and write to the another. Same goes for installations where either the game/program is on one disk and installed on another, or even on cd/dvd but the installer first unpacks the files to disk (typically done to C: partition). I would therefor have my games disk on another physical disk then the C: is on. Also reasons why I am going for 2 single physical disks in my next setup, and no king of raid.

---

Absolutely correct.

If you can organize applications so that you can deliberately distribute operations of different huge file in a way that these files live on different disks, that beats any raid any day.

Another application area for this is audio/video encoding, at least when very fast compression or no compression is used. For intense compression it doesn't matter because the CPU is the bottleneck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

<<
3- Faster drives won't be noticable in actual gameplay, even load-as-you go games.
>>

Disagree strongly! In online games like Dark Age of Camelot that I have played for like 5 years now, I can garantee you that faster disks will help noticable.

---

Me, too. Faster disks are, next to RAM, the major improvement for computer usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

And why uOpt is saying software raid is ok is beyond me, one serious software error and the whole raid CAN get corrupt.

---

Not sure what you mean here. If you OS screws up and wipes blocks all over the place you are screwed no matter what.

The raid software running in the kernel is no more or less suspectible to errors than the software running in the firmware of the controller. Both are raid software which may or may not experience bugs that wipe your data.

Of course you should never, ever, use one of the onboard SATA raid things for any redundant raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

It will also be slower then hardware raids.

---

No. For raid-0 and raid-1 you have practially no CPU overhead at all. It is the simplest code you can imagine, I can post the parts both from Linux and FreeBSD here in one page. If you non-raid disk controller is as good a disk controller as the one in the raid controller, both end up with the same speed. I already linked to my benchmarks.

For raid-5 it's a little different, but modern CPUs are fast enough to take that without problems, too. The hardware raid controller will beat software raid here, but not by too much of a margin anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JH_man

I would personally never run one. Neither do I understand what he mean by onboard software raid. Either the raid is software, meaning its all controlled by a program that is running, or its hardware (onboard or on own controller board) and therefor run by the hardware chip controller, meaning its hardware. This is the only nitpicking I will stretch myself to do, since he is kinda contradicting himself here. But not big deal, I think most understand what he means. And no offense intended uOpt, but you pick alot on my post, so I poke you this one time.

---

Yeah, you misunderstand. The onboard sata raid solution do run in software, of course, but they are not "software raid". With software raid I mean something that your OS does without any help from BIOS or disk controller, such as ccd, gmirror or raidframe in BSD or Linux raid. Windows also has this, although in a more limited form.

The onboard sata stuff seriously suffers from the integration of drivers and BIOS, non-ability to use partitions before RAID, unreliability and missed speedup opportunities such as in raid-1. I don't use that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

How about this:

Keep my 2 7200 RPM Drives in Raid 0, and my old ATA as a backup.

Then add a super fast single drive, 15000 RPM, w/o RAID, and install only games on it. Would that be a good way to go?

4 Drives total:
2 RAID System/Misc Stuff
1 Super Fast Game drive
1 Backup drive

With that solution, I would only have to buy one relatively small drive since only three or four games would ever be on it at a single time.

What do you think?

---

uOpt Did you have any comment on this setup I was thinking about?

Also, will the new Motherboards coming out, the 590's to be exact, not already support that SCSI Disk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

uOpt Did you have any comment on this setup I was thinking about?

Also, will the new Motherboards coming out, the 590's to be exact, not already support that SCSI Disk?

---

No, for SCSI you need an extra controller and I'm not sure there are cheap and decent PCIe offerings these days. And there are no 15,000 rpm SATA drives.

That is why I said it is probably smarter for you to invest money first into more memory and then 10,000 rpm disks, maybe only one disk.

If you have two 7200 disks RAID-0ed and a single 10,000 disk, then you can move your games around and try things out. Leave those games that speed up from raid-0 on the array and put those that don't on the 10,000 rpm.

And some backup at least for the raid-0 is required. Probably best done by a cheap big disk in a USB enclosure.

i run option 2 and luv it...

I've been thinking this over while considering a Conroe build and I've pretty much decided to replace my 36GB Raptors in RAID 0 with a single Raptor 150GB drive. I'll install the OS and all my games on the Raptor and use my 300GB drive for file storage.

RAID 0 has always *felt* faster to me when loading the OS and games / programs - so I hope the new Raptor will *feel* as fast or faster. If it doesn't I'll do the same thing I have on my last few builds - start the install over again with two Raptor 150's in RAID 0. :rolleyes:

I use 2x150GB drives in Raid-0 and an older 80GB as my OS. Raid(-0) is the best thing you can for a system. There is no other way to significantly speed up things in the storage subsystem. Faster HDDs offer only marginal performance increase whereas Raid (0, 0+1) offer excellent access increase.

I also do not see Raid-0 as any more of a risk than a single HDD. A faulty HDD is a faulty HDD and it matters not what it is apart of. If you are really worried about your data, either backup or use 4 HDD and have speed and redundancy in another Raid configuration.

Also, I don't see how you can stop windows using the paging file. More ram never worked for me. It always miffed me when you can see there is much free physical ram available but windows is using the paging file anyway. Never figured out why.

I must also mention that I am a gamer and the difference that raid0 made to load times was incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uOpt

No, for SCSI you need an extra controller and I'm not sure there are cheap and decent PCIe offerings these days. And there are no 15,000 rpm SATA drives.

That is why I said it is probably smarter for you to invest money first into more memory and then 10,000 rpm disks, maybe only one disk.

If you have two 7200 disks RAID-0ed and a single 10,000 disk, then you can move your games around and try things out. Leave those games that speed up from raid-0 on the array and put those that don't on the 10,000 rpm.

And some backup at least for the raid-0 is required. Probably best done by a cheap big disk in a USB enclosure.

---

I thought anything past 2GB of RAM was pointless... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SexyMF

I use 2x150GB drives in Raid-0 and an older 80GB as my OS. Raid(-0) is the best thing you can for a system. There is no other way to significantly speed up things in the storage subsystem. Faster HDDs offer only marginal performance increase whereas Raid (0, 0+1) offer excellent access increase.

---

Well - this is subjectively what I always thought to be true. Windows and games *appear* to load way faster when run from a RAID 0 array. But most reviewers / benchmarkers report that the gains are negligible at best. Like I said - I'll get the Raptor 150 and install XP and one game and see how it *feels*. If it doesn't measure up to what I am used to with my existing setup, I'll plug in another Raptor 150 and stripe them. Wish those damn things weren't so expensive - it would make the decision a lot easier up front. :slapass:

here is my .02, using SCSI on a home computer, unless you are running a serious server, I don't see the need. Using RAID, again not really unless you need large data moving.

I wanted to use RAID, but just can't bring myself to do it.

I have my Boot drive, regular IDE, then I have my GAME drive, 10Krpm 74GB Raptor, and my Storage drive for everything else - 200GB Seatgate 7200.7 SATA.

I load Oblivion fast enough for me, and if I need more data storage, I have two PLX 716SA CD-R/W-DVD-RW. I am debating getting a second RAPTOR, if I do, then I might use RAID, just for the hell of it.

Quote:

---

Wish those damn things weren't so expensive - it would make the decision a lot easier up front. :slapass:

---

This is so true

Would a Raptor really be noticably faster than my Baracudas? Or are we talking about milliseconds here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Would a Raptor really be noticably faster than my Baracudas? Or are we talking about milliseconds here?

---

you are talking 10KRPM vs 7200RPM for one, Then you can look at the stats between the two drives and decide for yourself.

I have a Baracuda, and a RAptor, I think the RAptor is faster in accessing files and what not, they are both SATA.

No questions asked, the 15K cheetas are the fastest drives you listed. LEt's be real here, 15K cheetas are server\workstation drives and have no room on a dekstop, they generate alot of heat to. To run these drives a very expensive SCSI controller will be needed. I've used SCSI drives in the past and they just are not meant for desktops, they are loud as hell and run hot.

Your best bet would be to get 2x10,000rpm Raptors, which will plug right into your MB and can be set up in RAID0. For best system performance, install the OS\games\apps on the 10K RAID array and use your other drives as backup\storage.

I'm the first person on the BF:2 map every round, this is because I run BF:2 off a 3xRaptor RAID0 array.:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phelan1777

you are talking 10KRPM vs 7200RPM for one, Then you can look at the stats between the two drives and decide for yourself.

I have a Baracuda, and a RAptor, I think the RAptor is faster in accessing files and what not, they are both SATA.

---

Not sure if that answers my question or not... My Baracuda's are in RAID, but it sounds like we have already addressed that. Hmmr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Not sure if that answers my question or not... My Baracuda's are in RAID, but it sounds like we have already addressed that. Hmmr.

---

RAID barracudas vs. Single raptor, or raid barracudas vs. raid raptors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

No questions asked, the 15K cheetas are the fastest drives you listed. LEt's be real here, 15K cheetas are server\workstation drives and have no room on a dekstop, they generate alot of heat to. To run these drives a very expensive SCSI controller will be needed. I've used SCSI drives in the past and they just are not meant for desktops, they are loud as hell and run hot.

Your best bet would be to get 2x10,000rpm Raptors, which will plug right into your MB and can be set up in RAID0. For best system performance, install the OS\games\apps on the 10K RAID array and use your other drives as backup\storage.

I'm the first person on the BF:2 map every round, this is because I run BF:2 off a 3xRaptor RAID0 array.:banana:

---

Do the 36 GB Raptors perform the same as the 150 GB ones? I don't need a ton of room for a few games.

Not sure which of these tests is the most important:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/storag...2=138&chart=32

Also, OS on same drive as the Games? Thought it was best to separate them...


Could be wrong again though :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

RAID barracudas vs. Single raptor, or raid barracudas vs. raid raptors?

---

I guess my original question was RAID Baracudas vs a single Raptor, though I suppose I could get 3 X 26 GB Raptors and run that in RAID 0.

I have seen arguements that sata raid can compete, if not out perform single raptors.

good SATA 16 MB cache RAID 0 will be about the same as single raptor, i think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

I thought anything past 2GB of RAM was pointless... :shrug:

---

If you use swapfile, obviously not, and neither if you drop a lot of readonly pages.

Generally, the statements that more than 2 GB RAM is useless comes from people running benchmarks and reporting no difference. But of course that doesn't take loading into account.

I have 4 GB or more is almost all my machines.

What about a Single Raptor of 150g GB vs 3 36 GB Raptors in RAID 0?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

What about a Single Raptor of 150g GB vs 3 36 GB Raptors in RAID 0?

---

umm I don't know personally.

would be a little bit cheaper I think, but more heat, and more space used up in case.

150 GB raptor is prolly less expensive than 3 36s, i would think, 3 36s will outperform the 150, but only one out of three needs to die to lose ALL your data...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

150 GB raptor is prolly less expensive than 3 36s, i would think, 3 36s will outperform the 150, but only one out of three needs to die to lose ALL your data...

---

Hmm, maybe I will do 2 36's. Would there be much performance loss going down from 3 36's to 2 36's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Hmm, maybe I will do 2 36's. Would there be much performance loss going down from 3 36's to 2 36's?

---

well, IMO, it's not really worth it to even go RAID/raptors, but the drop from 3 36s to 2 won't be much or any, I think....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

well, IMO, it's not really worth it to even go RAID/raptors, but the drop from 3 36s to 2 won't be much or any, I think....

---

So don't even bother and run with my Baracudas in RAID as I am now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

So don't even bother and run with my Baracudas in RAID as I am now?

---

no, i meant from 3 raid raptors to 2 raid raptors prolly won't be a big diff...
but IMO i would just run the barracudas raid, that's already damn fast...

there was a little debate about this some time ago on XS right when raptors were coming out. all of the benchmarks are gone now, but i remember seeing that there was marginal benefit. of course this was about 2 years ago and the raptors have seen some minor overhauls, so it could be different now. however, the general consensus seemed to be that it was overkill, but if you had the money and two drives then why not go for it. whats the worst that can happen? you keep your drives in RAID 0, it crashes, that sucks. you dont like the setup? set it back up to single drive. doesnt cost you anything more than a little time, so why not give it a try?

personally i dont think the performance to headache ratio makes it worth it. get a nice raptor drive for all of your games and OS, then buy a big drive for storage like someone (cant remember who) already said.

edit: keep in mind that debate was done back when 512 RAM was standard. so HDD access while gaming was a little more common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ocmyface

edit: keep in mind that debate was done back when 512 RAM was standard. so HDD access while gaming was common

---

And now that it isn't, wouldn't that make it even more useless?

Is there anything that is "on the horizon" as far as Hard drives go that one should just hold out for? Say, in the next year, there abouts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

And now that it isn't, wouldn't that make it even more useless?

---

yup, thats why i said to keep it in mind. a good example is to look at the harddrive industry. emphasis is being put on more storage and efficient writing then it is crazy fast load times. maybe its just the direction they chose to go but it seems to be for a reason...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Is there anything that is "on the horizon" as far as Hard drives go that one should just hold out for? Say, in the next year, there abouts?

---

terabyte harddrives? honestly, i dont think theres such a thing as a harddrive technology worth holding out for, especially a year. it loads your game then it goes to sleep... not the most thrilling market ;)

I don't think so Soulburner - because EVERYTHING scales over time. I had to go to 1GB of RAM to run FarCry adequately. I had to go to 2GB of RAM to run Call of Duty 2, Doom 3, and FEAR adequately. The map sizes for some games are now waaaayyyyy bigger than they were a few years ago and they still have to be loaded into RAM (even tho there is more of it). And I notice the HD getting hit all the time during games and loading games in MP.

I dunno - I think I just have to try building my Conroe with the 150GB Raptor and see what happens. I have a feeling it will be back to RAID0 in no time though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr8golf

I don't think so Soulburner - because EVERYTHING scales over time. I had to go to 1GB of RAM to run FarCry adequately. I had to go to 2GB of RAM to run Call of Duty 2, Doom 3, and FEAR adequately.

---

thats a good point but since the amount of RAM scales with the demand of the games it seems that the marginal benefit you see will remain static, so i highly doubt games will ever reach a point (in the forseeable future) where running RAID0 is as necessary as upgrading your RAM. a new form of HDD technology (such as that HDD that works alot like RAM but isnt volatile) will probably come around before that happens

you got to keep in mind that the most important thing to gamers is high resolutions and high fps first. a HDD gives you neither, sure it'll let you be "the first person in the server", but you still gotta wait on everyone else to load ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

What about a Single Raptor of 150g GB vs 3 36 GB Raptors in RAID 0?

---

The 3x36GB raptors will smoke a single 150 EVERY single time. In that link to THG, the Raptor 150 has the best access time, but not by much over the 36.

I ran a quick HDtach to show you what 3x36GB Raptors are capable of vs 2 Baracuda 7200.7. Keep in mind that my drives are the 'older' 36GB Raptors, the new ones have 16MB Cache and their access times will probably be a few tenths of a ms faster...
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7...id0ich7tj9.jpg

I will never again use a 7200rpm driver after using 10k Raptors. When I use other computers I get impatient with their slow HDD:banana: .

Also keep in mind that WD Raptors carry a 5yr. warranty.

Edit: before I added the 3rd raptor into the array, I ran 2x36GB Raptors, and even 2 raptors will smoke a sinlge 150, it's simply 2vs1. Two Raptors will be sufficeint for most any gamer.

Thanks Ranger XLT8 that was very helpful! :hug:

Also, where should Windows be installed for Best Gaming Experience?

Installed on the 3 Raptors, or Installed on the Other SATA Storage drive?

I'd install Windows on the raptors for the faster load times. If you lose a raptor, you can just reinstall Windows from the CD. There's nothing to lose.

Hey Ranger XLT8, why are the ppl here suggeting just a single Raptor and not the 3x36 RAID setup?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=1904958

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Hey Ranger XLT8, why are the ppl here suggeting just a single Raptor and not the 3x36 RAID setup?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=1904958

---

Hmm maybe they don't know what they are talking about lol EDIt: I'm recommending this based on personal experience. I have used SCSI drives, single 7200rpm drives, RAID0 7200rpm drives, RAID1 7200rpm drives RAID0 2xRaptors, and currently run 3x36GB Raptors in RAID0. The only HDD configuration I have not run is SAS(wayyy tooo expensive for my broke college student self lol)

Real Life: I play Counter-Strike:Source with a bunch of guys who I know, some of who use single 74\150GB raptors, one of them uses 2x74GB in RAID 0. I am consistently the first person on the map, why; because I have 3 drives doing the work of 1. Granted that a single Raptor 150 is going to be fast, I'm just saying that 2 of any Raptor are faster then one.

The only bad thing about RAID0: If one HDD of the array goes bad you lose all your data in the array. If you have 2 drives in RAID, then the chances of 1 drive going bad are twice as high vs 1 drive. What I do to combat this is: Use Norton Ghost and make a image of my RAID0 array about every 2 months and store it on my storage disk. My critical data(school work, projects, hardware reviews ect) are backed up to DVD periodically aswell. Raptors are Enterprise level drives, built with the highest quality\standards, not to mention they weigh twice as much has a normal 7200rpm drive

EDIt: The 3x36GB drives equal about 100GB of storage after formatted and all. For optimal all around performance install the OS, games\applications on the RAID0 array. For pictures\music, storage use regular 7200rpm Barracuda. I use a WD320KS.

Here's how RAID 0 works:
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

The 3x36GB raptors will smoke a single 150 EVERY single time. In that link to THG, the Raptor 150 has the best access time, but not by much over the 36.

I ran a quick HDtach to show you what 3x36GB Raptors are capable of vs 2 Baracuda 7200.7. Keep in mind that my drives are the 'older' 36GB Raptors, the new ones have 16MB Cache and their access times will probably be a few tenths of a ms faster...
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7...id0ich7tj9.jpg

I will never again use a 7200rpm driver after using 10k Raptors. When I use other computers I get impatient with their slow HDD:banana: .

Also keep in mind that WD Raptors carry a 5yr. warranty.

Edit: before I added the 3rd raptor into the array, I ran 2x36GB Raptors, and even 2 raptors will smoke a sinlge 150, it's simply 2vs1. Two Raptors will be sufficeint for most any gamer.

---

7200.7s. not 7200.10s....
and that's probably because with a 3x36 setup you're going to have a REALLY high chance of losing our data...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

7200.7s. not 7200.10s....
and that's probably because with a 3x36 setup you're going to have a REALLY high chance of losing our data...

---

Bah you obivously have never used Raptors in RAID0. Next please.

This is what Iraqi bob says from the folks on anand:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3...tercopypj7.jpg

@ Natalia: The lesson to learn here is that 2 or 3 Raptors are superior in performance vs 1 in every aspect. Doesn't really matter what size the drives are. Keep in mind that Raptors are ENTERPRISE level drives, designed to bring the reliability of SCSI to SATA..

Keep in mind the 150 GB Raptor is faster than the older ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uOpt

Keep in mind the 150 GB Raptor is faster than the older ones.

---

I was refering to the WD360ADFD Drives, not the older WD360GD drives wich have been around, from what I can tell, about three years. These WD360ADFD drives look to be built on the same premise as the new 150 wich have the model number WD1500ADFD


Also, on a side note, everyone talks about loss off data... not to much of a concern for me since I have never once seen a hard drive fail in my 15 years of using a computer... dating all the way back to DOS :p: Also, if I keep any sensative material that I can't just reinstall off the RAID, then if it dies, who cares? Right?

I was comparing prices and came across this!

WOOOOOOOOOOO

150GB RAptor with 50$ MIR for 199$ aMIR @ the EGG!

WISH I HAD the cash :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phelan1777

I was comparing prices and came across this!

WOOOOOOOOOOO

150GB RAptor with 50$ MIR for 199$ aMIR @ the EGG!

WISH I HAD the cash :-(

---

Wow it's back!
Newegg had this deal like 4 days ago. I would jump on it if I had th money.

Hmmmmmmm.....


$200 for 1 150 GB Raptor......

$327 for 3 36GB Raptors in Raid....


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

That's a tough one :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

Bah you obivously have never used Raptors in RAID0. Next please.

This is what Iraqi bob says from the folks on anand:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3...tercopypj7.jpg

@ Natalia: The lesson to learn here is that 2 or 3 Raptors are superior in performance vs 1 in every aspect. Doesn't really matter what size the drives are. Keep in mind that Raptors are ENTERPRISE level drives, designed to bring the reliability of SCSI to SATA..

---

uh, where in my post does it say that i have? I was merely pointing out that your tests used the very old barracudas, as opposed to the new ones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

uh, where in my post does it say that i have? I was merely pointing out that your tests used the very old barracudas, as opposed to the new ones...

---

This was aimed at a comment natalia made about some folks at anandforums/ hence why I typed this "This is what Iraqi bob says from the folks on anand:"

@ Natalia, if you go with the 3x36GB drives you will be happy, trust me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

This was aimed at a comment natalia made about some folks at anandforums/ hence why I typed this "This is what Iraqi bob says from the folks on anand:"

@ Natalia, if you go with the 3x36GB drives you will be happy, trust me.

---

Yeah sure it will be fast, but it won't be worth it. $400 will get you two Raptors and 300 gigs of space. $327 for three Raptors that equal 108 gigs of space....
spending another $73 will get you 192 gigs of space, I'd take it. Why have three 36k Raptors, when two 150 gig will be just fine.

I'd just get two 150gig Raptors in Raid0, and keep your other two 80gig drives as storage, or you can just buy another say 400gig drive and use that as storage. Up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latoron

Yeah sure it will be fast, but it won't be worth it. $400 will get you two Raptors and 300 gigs of space. $327 for three Raptors that equal 108 gigs of space....
spending another $73 will get you 192 gigs of space, I'd take it. Why have three 36k Raptors, when two 150 gig will be just fine.

I'd just get two 150gig Raptors in Raid0, and keep your other two 80gig drives as storage, or you can just buy another say 400gig drive and use that as storage. Up to you.

---

I think the point of the 3X36GB raptors was that 3 are better then 2 and that Natalia did not need 300GB of storage across 2 drives when 3 drives totaling 100gb is more practical in terms of speed..

I love my raptor 2x74 raid, 32K/16K stripe/cluster size. I'm always the 1st one in server (after map change) when online gaming :)


http://xs204.xs.to/xs204/06304/gbraidatto.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

I ran a quick HDtach to show you what 3x36GB Raptors are capable of vs 2 Baracuda 7200.7. Keep in mind that my drives are the 'older' 36GB Raptors, the new ones have 16MB Cache and their access times will probably be a few tenths of a ms faster...
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7...id0ich7tj9.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

I love my raptor 2x74 raid, 32K/16K stripe/cluster size. I'm always the 1st one in server (after map change) when online gaming :)
http://xs204.xs.to/xs204/06304/gbraidatto.JPG

---

and if you wanna get a clear view of the new 2x74gb ADFD's performance
you can see how they perform against either the 3x36gb or the 2x74gd configs
(stripe64 cluster32 on ICH7R)

atto32
http://www.thelab.gr/attachment.php?postid=404627

HDTACH3.01
(don't pay attention to the insane burst speed...
the write caching just made the bench go crazy)
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y27...ITECACHING.jpg

Wait, RangerXLT8, you have the old version of the 36 Gigs right? The WD360GD ones, not the new WD360ADFD. Would that mean it could even be faster than what you were testing?

Also, in regards to you test against an old Baracuda, that was a great test since those are the drives that I have now. Much more useful than a test against the new Seagate drives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Wait, RangerXLT8, you have the old version of the 36 Gigs right? The WD360GD ones, not the new WD360ADFD. Would that mean it could even be faster than what you were testing?

Also, in regards to you test against an old Baracuda, that was a great test since those are the drives that I have now. Much more useful than a test against the new Seagate drives.

---

Yes the new 36GB Raptors are faster no doubt. The new 36GB drives could be as much as say 20% faster then mine. :banana: They are revised and have 16MB cache along with NCQ, which all make a big difference.

I don't know how much space you need. With that said, the more Raptors doing the job, the faster. Remember RAID0 is a handfull of drives combined to make one big drive. Take how much space you need, and get as many Raptors as you can to make it up, the more drives, the faster it will be. Take 2x150 GB raptors = 300GB. That 300GB of storage made up with 4x74GB drives will be wayy faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

Take 2x150 GB raptors = 300GB. That 300GB of storage made up with 4x74GB drives will be wayy faster.

---

More noise and heat, and power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phelan1777

More noise and heat, and power?

---

Yep along with more SPEED.

Anyone who has used Raptors in RAID understands what I'm talking about.

4x78 is just ASKING to lose data...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

4x78 is just ASKING to lose data...

---

You know I have been reading tech forums since Raptors came about, and I have not heard one such case.

If it was me I would hold onto the drives I already have. Keep your raid 0 config for games and get a 32 gb flash drive for the os and swap file when available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

You know I have been reading tech forums since Raptors came about, and I have not heard one such case.

---

Because lots of have seen even D.O.A. Raptors (mostly 74gb older ones...)
if someone is going for a 4 disk config
i'd definately recomend a raid5 setup...
you use the 200gb (3x74) and spare the xtra disk for security
much safer choice
especially if you can afford a decent hardware controller
to avoid suffering software-raid5 write time penalty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

Yep along with more SPEED.

Anyone who has used Raptors in RAID understands what I'm talking about.

---

ehh well I am 200$ or 1 raptor short of RAID :-/

I think for Natalias case depending on how much space is needed, 2x74GB Raptor would work aswell. I'm just saying that 1x150GB raptor cannot compete with 2xRaptor in RAID0.

Space is not too much of an issue. I only need enough space for Windows and it's teem of junk it installs, and a few games. I usually only play 2 maybe 3 games at any given time.

Also, is the RAID control built into a high end ASUS motherboard sufficient for what we are talking about?

ASUS do not produce their own controllers, be VERY careful which controller you'd use.
ICH5/6/7 (Intel integrated RAID controllers) have no PCI bus limitation and are good for RAID 0.
An integrated nvRaid will also give best possible performance in RAID 0.
I am running 4 Raptors in RAID 0 on nvRaid, but I do need it, and I still consider it slow, with actual copy speeds of 250 MB/s (not just some burst s***). I am YET to find anyone with SATA setup to outperform the nvRaid (without > 4 Raptors, \duh).

Promise integrated controllers on ASUS on the other hand are S*** of the worst kind :(

BTW, if you intend to run 3 drives, note that you will not gain much over 2 in real-world. Windows cache is oganized in 64K chunks, thus if the stripe is <32, you will read the same drive twice (at least one of the drives), and if it is >=32 you will not read at least one drive for each chunk.
Power of 2 plays a handy role in RAID.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

4x78 is just ASKING to lose data...

---

Actually - running anything LESS than RAID 1 or 5 is asking to lose data. I've never understood how ppl can be so adamant that you are going to get screwed and lose data by running RAID 0. Hard drives have come a long way, but you still run a risk of losing your data with a single drive.

I've seen firsthand numerous cases in enterprise data centers where servers lose two drives at the same time in a RAID5 array and are toast. I've seen high end array controllers blow up and toast an array. Talk to anyone who has worked a help desk and see how many failed HD's or corrupted file systems they have dealt with. It happens all the time.

I don't want a lecture on probabilities from this - I'm simply making the point that you should EXPECT to lose your drive / data at some point - so make sure you have backups and set up whatever you need to get the performance you want. You will end up reinstalling and restoring your data sooner than later - especially if you are an enthusiast and change your hardware frequently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Space is not too much of an issue. I only need enough space for Windows and it's teem of junk it installs, and a few games. I usually only play 2 maybe 3 games at any given time.

Also, is the RAID control built into a high end ASUS motherboard sufficient for what we are talking about?

---

High-end Asus boards run some of the best onboard RAID controller out there.

@ gr8golf: I totally agree with you. Backup of critial files is imperative. Wether its through a RAID 5 or 0+1 setup, or just burning files to DVD>

They tend to, but not all of them - Promise is very common on Intel ASUS mobos and is far from good performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangerXLT8

High-end Asus boards run some of the best onboard RAID controller out there.

---

I ONLY install OS, Apps, and Games on my array as I expect to lose the data. All my important stuff (music, drivers, utility install files, movies, downloads, work) is backed up on a WD Caviar and DVD+RW disks.

I'm not afraid of a RAID0 failure. In fact, I want to sell my 2 74GB raptors and get 4 36GB ones.

Common sense, and you can take advantage of the speed boost without worry. Mark what you see as "expendable data"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfaunits

BTW, if you intend to run 3 drives, note that you will not gain much over 2 in real-world. Windows cache is oganized in 64K chunks, thus if the stripe is <32, you will read the same drive twice (at least one of the drives), and if it is >=32 you will not read at least one drive for each chunk.
Power of 2 plays a handy role in RAID.

---

So Drives should be installed in multiples of 2 for RAID?♠

For RAID0 generally yes. In some rare circumstances you will see performance gains with, say, 3 drives..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

So Drives should be installed in multiples of 2 for RAID?♠

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr8golf

Actually - running anything LESS than RAID 1 or 5 is asking to lose data. I've never understood how ppl can be so adamant that you are going to get screwed and lose data by running RAID 0. Hard drives have come a long way, but you still run a risk of losing your data with a single drive.

I've seen firsthand numerous cases in enterprise data centers where servers lose two drives at the same time in a RAID5 array and are toast. I've seen high end array controllers blow up and toast an array. Talk to anyone who has worked a help desk and see how many failed HD's or corrupted file systems they have dealt with. It happens all the time.

I don't want a lecture on probabilities from this - I'm simply making the point that you should EXPECT to lose your drive / data at some point - so make sure you have backups and set up whatever you need to get the performance you want. You will end up reinstalling and restoring your data sooner than later - especially if you are an enthusiast and change your hardware frequently.

---

I understand your point, but 4 drives in raid 0 makes me think that you should just go raid 5, if u can buy 4...

I feeling like I will just go for 2x36GB Raptors. That way I am not into it too much should it pan out not to bee worth it. Then its simply a trip to ebay :D

sounds good to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [TAG]Imp

sounds good to me...

---

Okie :) I think NewEgg has the best price for the 36GB, seems that $109 Each is as good as I can find.

I'd love to have 4 36GB raptors in RAID0, but i'd probably get an Areca 1210 to reduce CPU util and get better access time. Onboard RAID just don't cut it for anything over 2 drives...

Uhm, says who: (see attachment)
This is on 4K clusters, 16K get even higher, always 0% CPU util.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EquilibriumX

I'd love to have 4 36GB raptors in RAID0, but i'd probably get an Areca 1210 to reduce CPU util and get better access time. Onboard RAID just don't cut it for anything over 2 drives...

---

Try HD Tach, 2x74GB raptors says 8% util for me. ICH7 and 64K clusters

I did Everest test because in another thread someone did a test with Everest on the same mobo, stronger processor, showing CPU utilization.

IIRC, same on ICH5 on PC-DL with 2 Raptors.

#0 If you want to have the best performance in game you should by this http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...m/index.x?pg=1 , and there is also a I Ram 2 on the way or en the stores whit Ddr2 ram and the I Ram 2 is not i PCI is af 5.25" bay mount whit batteri and pover from a 12 volltage`s cord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oea

#0 If you want to have the best performance in game you should by this http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...m/index.x?pg=1 , and there is also a I Ram 2 on the way or en the stores whit Ddr2 ram and the I Ram 2 is not i PCI is af 5.25" bay mount whit batteri and pover from a 12 volltage`s cord

---

Funny you should mention this because I was reading about I-RAM's today and was going to make an update to this post.

My 1st topic I wanted to bring up was loading times in games. They compared a Raptor to the i-RAM and obviously the i-RAM was faster, but not instantaneous of course. But looking at these results, the i-RAM shaves off about a max of 24%. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but an i-RAM should be a great deal faster than Raptors in RAID-0. So, based on this link here, Raptors in RAID would really have very slight impact on level load times, maybe only a second or two?

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=2480&p=8

Also, is Gigabyte the only company making Solid State "Hard Drives"?

And they are currently maxed at 4GB right?

And does anyone have a link for the next generation of the i-RAM? The one that won't be a PCI slot card?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

Funny you should mention this because I was reading about I-RAM's today and was going to make an update to this post.

My 1st topic I wanted to bring up was loading times in games. They compared a Raptor to the i-RAM and obviously the i-RAM was faster, but not instantaneous of course. But looking at these results, the i-RAM shaves off about a max of 24%. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but an i-RAM should be a great deal faster than Raptors in RAID-0. So, based on this link here, Raptors in RAID would really have very slight impact on level load times, maybe only a second or two?

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=2480&p=8

Also, is Gigabyte the only company making Solid State "Hard Drives"?

And they are currently maxed at 4GB right?

And does anyone have a link for the next generation of the i-RAM? The one that won't be a PCI slot card?

---

Less space used in case, less heat produced, less noise as well?

I have no idea why ppl show load times for the OS or games comparing hard drives, when it is less important.
Still, being limited to such little space and speed limited by the SATA standard, I can't find i-Ram useful even for OS. If you reboot every second, sure, but how often does one reboot? It is too small for most new games that are DVD+ in size.

Plus, say we need 3 i-Rams, that's 300$, plus we need 12x1GB memory, I guess around 600$ = 900$. That's 9x36G Raptors! You can't beat that speed.

#93 You have totally rigth to a point because I Ram is the "fastest" storage you cant "afford" #0 so if you wont to have the "best" performance , so buy I Ram to the OS and swap file , and to raptors whit 16 mb cache to the games , or buy to scsi disc`s , and also remember to have 2-4 gb ram in you Computer , inclusive the I Ram and 2 Raptors or scsi disc`s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natalia

What is the Best configuration for RAID if you are solely using the computer for gaming? (Alright I admit I shop for clothes online and write a paper for school here and there :p: )

Currently I have a RAID 0 configuration my friend helped me with. We set up 2
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST380817AS 80GB Serial ATA 7200RPM Hard Drive w/8MB Buffer
in RAID 0.

I was wondering... would I notice gaming improvement more with which of the following:

1-No Change
2-2 10,000 SATA Drives in RAID 0
3-3 of the same Drives above in RAID 0
4-Some other RAID configuration, i.e. 1,3,5
5-2 Seagate 15,000 RPM Cheeta's in RAID 0
6-Other

Sorry I don't know too much about this, and most of the sites I have gone to can be a little too confusing to me :(

---

Well, since you have a decent amount of ram 2x1GB !! your PF will rarely be used, in other words, there is no game on earth would require more rams than you already have. Moreover, once the game is loaded it will rarely be relevant to HD, because it's then only a matter of CPU, RAM and GC (VPU and RAM). HD has nothing to do then even if its RPM 100000 !! that won't affect realtime play.

2G enough for any game? ROFL! That's a good one...

#95 and #96 , if #0 want to have the "best" Performance in game including the load time, she needs to upgrade to example 2 x 74GB Raptors , I Ram , og Scsi discs , but if #0 "just" want to have the "best" Performance "in game" she dosnt need to buy example 2 x 74GB Raptors , I Ram or Scsi discs instead she needs a god CPU , GPU and 2 - 4 GB System Memory

does anyone have any performence numbers of the WD360ADFD.
or a review were it is compaired with the WD740ADFD.

as all reviews only compaire the 150GB and 74Gb models.
But i wanna know how big the gap between the 2 of em is.

Personally I'd just stick with what you have, but that doesn't seem to be what you want. Sounds like you want all the performance you can get. If money is not a big concern then listen to Ranger with the raptor raid setup.

One other comment is you might want to get an esata backup and not use an internal backup drive. I'm somewhat paranoid in that you never know what will kill your system (ie. virus, etc..). I recommend an esata solution for backing up and then disconnecting it each time (esata is hot swappable). Raid 0 is great but when you get 'array broken' :shock2: right when that paper is due you'll be glad you thought the backup through.

One last thing, make sure the disks are what you really need, can you pop a new processor in your mobo socket? or get a new vid card?

I admit i did not read all the posts in this thread, so if I'm restating please forgive me :D

Just a comment on RAM, with Vista you will be able to connect a flash drive and use it as virtual RAM. With Sandisk coming out with the Extreme 4 this is a viable way to dynamically increase RAM without taking up slots or locking into expensive hardware since extreme 4 the speeds are somewhat reasonable.

I'm not saying this is the fastest solution, in fact it may be the slowest vs. adding more internal ram, raptors, etc.. just pointing it out since Nat. mentioned 'anything coming down the road' in one of her posts...