Raid Decessions...

[Maleko]

Ok, I wanna set up a raid on my system, at current i got a 200gb WD SATA, with 2 IDE drives, 80 and a 60, and a 160 external backup.

I would like to shoot off the 60 and 80, and get another 200 and raid it with my current 200.

But im not sure what Raid to choose, Raid 0 or 1.

Now I play a lot of online games, but i do like the idea of Raid 1 being a mirror, im very back up concious!

So just curious to see what you guys think/suggest.

[teqguy]

A few things to note about RAID:

+ Hardware based RAID requires IDENTICAL hard drives, meaning no deviation in specs, formatting, etc. Software based RAID, such as the striping option in Windows is a little more lenient when it comes to that; you can use mismatched drives, but data redundancy is at a higher risk.

+ Large capacity hard drives make for absolutely terrible RAID arrays, especially when they're multi-platter drives. Not only is performance reduced significantly, but with a higher capacity, you have more room for data, and thus more data you're able to lose if something fails.

+ RAID0(otherwise known as striping) offers negligible performance enhancements under normal desktop environments. This is because disk access is almost directly proportional to what is actually happening on the screen, whereas, in a server or workstation, disk access is constant and directly proportional to what is happening in the application. Thus, gaming performance will NOT improve whatsoever. At the very most, you'll notice levels load a second or two faster(which is completely negligible to average human perception).

+ RAID1(otherwise known as mirroring) offers negligible data redundancy in a desktop environment. This is due to the fact that (A)Most data on a desktop is virtually replaceable and (B)When compared to other methods of data redundancy(ie: Norton Ghost and/or GoBack, DVDRW backups, flash drives, external hard drives with scheduled backups), RAID is simply not cost effective.

So, to put it simply, unless you're doing tasks that are hard drive bandwidth intensive, such as rendering or encoding, the difference between RAID and a single hard drive is negligible.

If you want better load times, you would be better off buying a Raptor.

Edited February 7, 2006 by teqguy

[ripken204]

teqguy- raid0 will load game levels a little faster but thats about it.

you will notice a speed improvent espcially with large files but access time is what really matters, if u want to get a raptor then that would be a better choice as far as speed goes

[teqguy]

teqguy- raid0 will load game levels a little faster but thats about it.

you will notice a speed improvent espcially with large files but access time is what really matters, if u want to get a raptor then that would be a better choice as far as speed goes

End of my third bullet point:

"At the very most, you'll notice levels load a second or two faster(which is completely negligible to average human perception)."

[Maleko]

I can undersatnd your points...but isnt the POINT of raid cost effective?

I can get a 200GB sata for £60, where as a 74GB Raptor would cost me £115

Dont get me wrong a Raptor would be VERY nice, can't knock them in the slightest. When it comes to the lovely thing called money...some peole don't wanna spend that much, which is why RAID is there, no?

Also, I do a lot of video editing as well, so that would benefit me, Im thinking of RAID 0, due to speed and space...I can always easily back up essential files on my external and DVD.

[teqguy]

Traditionally, RAID has only been used in environments where cost isn't an issue... and the only reason it's considered cost effective in such environments is because the only faster storage medium is an array of RAM, which of course requires the systems to be run 24/7 or be backed up by battery power.

Take into consideration that Raptors promote lower access times, while RAID0 promotes higher bandwidth and then apply each to tasks you do on a daily basis.

The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't use a RAID array unless it's going to benefit you significantly, because the benefit is limited to specific tasks and performance is not always going to be proportional with what you'd expect.

Edited February 7, 2006 by teqguy

[Zxian]

+ RAID1(otherwise known as mirroring) offers negligible data redundancy in a desktop environment. This is due to the fact that (A)Most data on a desktop is virtually replaceable and (B)When compared to other methods of data redundancy(ie: Norton Ghost and/or GoBack, DVDRW backups, flash drives, external hard drives with scheduled backups), RAID is simply not cost effective.

Granted... but if you've got a RAID-1 setup in your system at home, you don't need to worry about making backups in the first place. If one of the drives dies, just replace it, rebuild, and all your data is backed up again. It's expensive, but peace-of-mind. Also, pre-built external hard drives cost a fortune for the average user (retail prices), whereas setting up a RAID array would be about the same price.

Example:

External 300GB HD - some random no-name brand, 1 year warranty - $299 CAD

Seagate 300GB SATA /w NCQ HD - Seagate, 5 year warranty - $168 x 2 = $336 CAD

For me, the extra $36 would be worth it to have 4 more years of warranty, and to have all the data automatically backed up. Many motherboards now support RAID0 and RAID1 by default, so all it takes is a little learning or know-how to set it up.

[nmX.Memnoch]

I have to agree. The cost of doing a RAID setup in today's newer systems is almost negligible. Even the newest chipsets from NVIDIA and Intel are coming with hardware RAID5 support built in. This can give you the best of both worlds with speed and redundancy. Although it takes at least one additional drive to achieve, this is something that some people consider well worth the additional cost.

[Maleko]

Tnnks for all the input guys!

So, considerign my usage, the latest PC Games, Video Editing, Sometimes running a few graphic prograsm for photo/graphic editing....

what would be the best option in your opinion for me? In ways of Raid, causei need the space, and I aint forking out for a 150GB Raptor! lol

[ripken204]

you could get a 74gig raptor... whay motherboard do u have, it most likely doesnt support raid5 which means raid0

[Zxian]

Or... he could get a 200GB Seagate SATA /w NCQ drive for a lot less, and have more space. I'm really wondering how much of a difference the 74GB 10K raptor would have over a 200+GB 7200RPM drive with SATA-NCQ.

RAID0 those suckers and you'll have a pretty fast setup there.

[nmX.Memnoch]

The newer 74GB Raptors have NCQ as well. The original 36GB and very first 74GB Raptors didn't, but the latest revisions do.

EDIT: My bad, it appears that the 74GB Raptor uses some proprietary WD Command Queueing method instead of NCQ. This is still something the original Raptors didn't have though. The newer 150GB Raptors use NCQ.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.as...=65&Language=en

Enterprise-class throughput, with WD's Ultra/150 Command Queuing technology that optimizes the sequence of data transfers to the hard drive from the host, resulting in higher performance in enterprise applications.

Edited February 8, 2006 by nmX.Memnoch

[Zxian]

I figured that the newer Raptors would also have NCQ, but I was trying to push the point of where the price/performance ratio drops off. If you've got the money to throw down, go for it. If budget is a consideration, then a high density hard drive will also perform quite well.

[ripken204]

2x74gig raptors is faster than a single 300gig raptor

[teqguy]

Granted... but if you've got a RAID-1 setup in your system at home, you don't need to worry about making backups in the first place. If one of the drives dies, just replace it, rebuild, and all your data is backed up again. It's expensive, but peace-of-mind. Also, pre-built external hard drives cost a fortune for the average user (retail prices), whereas setting up a RAID array would be about the same price.

In a home environment, how much of this so called irreplacable data is actually irreplacable?

Outside of memories and documents, what else would a home user want to save in say... an earthquake or fire?

The better solution for a home user would be to back up data to an external web server, where it could be accessible from anywhere.

From what it seems, the data redundancy RAID1 provides is completely superfluous to what you intend to accomplish. The more adequate solution would be to install all of the applications you use on a daily basis and make a complete hard drive backup to either DVD-Rs or another hard drive and store it on a shelf for easy retrieval if something goes wrong.

Or... he could get a 200GB Seagate SATA /w NCQ drive for a lot less, and have more space. I'm really wondering how much of a difference the 74GB 10K raptor would have over a 200+GB 7200RPM drive with SATA-NCQ.

RAID0 those suckers and you'll have a pretty fast setup there.

As I mentioned in my first post, large capacity drives make for terrible RAID0 arrays. This is because there's a significant decline in bandwidth when you're on the second platter, which will negate the need for a RAID0 array.

Furthermore, as Tom's Hardware demonstrates, NCQ is really not as mature as it should be for it to make that much of a difference. In some random read tests, it did slightly better than with it off, but at the cost of bandwidth.

NCQ isn't meant to increase hard drive performance where it's most needed(in read/write bandwidth), but rather in random access times.

If you want a completely free alternative to NCQ, just partition your hard drive so you seperate Windows from your applications, documents, and temporary files, then defrag each partition with Power Defragmenter GUI(and contig.exe, found at sysinternals.com) found at http://www.excessive-software.eu.tt. This will ensure that the hard drive will rarely need to perform a random access.

2x74gig raptors is faster than a single 300gig raptor

There's no such thing as a 300GB Raptor, but if there were, two of them in RAID0 would be slower than one 74GB Raptor.