RAID and Gaming

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-02-2006, 10:51 PM
[TAG]Imp

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?
08-02-2006, 11:59 PM
Natalia

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:
08-03-2006, 12:00 AM
Natalia

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.
08-03-2006, 01:07 AM
phelan1777

I have seen arguements that sata raid can compete, if not out perform single raptors.
08-03-2006, 01:16 AM
[TAG]Imp

good SATA 16 MB cache RAID 0 will be about the same as single raptor, i think...
08-03-2006, 07:36 AM
uOpt

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.
08-03-2006, 08:58 AM
Natalia

What about a Single Raptor of 150g GB vs 3 36 GB Raptors in RAID 0?
08-03-2006, 09:03 AM
phelan1777

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.
08-03-2006, 11:50 AM
[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...
08-03-2006, 01:25 PM
Natalia

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?
08-03-2006, 01:40 PM
[TAG]Imp

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....
08-03-2006, 03:20 PM
Natalia

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?
08-03-2006, 03:29 PM
[TAG]Imp

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...
08-03-2006, 04:13 PM
ocmyface

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.
08-03-2006, 04:18 PM
Soulburner

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?
08-03-2006, 04:20 PM
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?
08-03-2006, 04:22 PM
ocmyface

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 ;)
08-03-2006, 04:23 PM
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. 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.
08-03-2006, 04:31 PM
ocmyface

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 ;)
08-03-2006, 05:41 PM
RangerXLT8

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.
08-03-2006, 05:46 PM
Natalia

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?
08-03-2006, 07:00 PM
couppi

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.
08-03-2006, 08:17 PM
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
08-03-2006, 08:34 PM
RangerXLT8

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
08-03-2006, 08:35 PM
[TAG]Imp

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...

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page