Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey ,
Just putting together a computer and was wondering what your thoughts are on a RAID 0 configuration...specifically going from a hard drive that is 1TB to two drives at 1TB.
I am not a big video editing person etc...mostly use it for internet surfing, games and basic Word and Excell work.
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
With no backup process? Don't do it as you're doubling the chances that a hard drive failure is going to take out all your data. It sounds as if your computer activities wouldn't benefit from RAID 0 anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Raid0 does not provide a big benefit with today's hard drives. Backups are necessary with any drive configuration so you may want to use a second drive for an automated backup process. If you want more speed, go with something like a WD Caviar Black that is optimized for speed. The new SATA3 drives and controllers may also provide some benefit. If you just want to speed up the boot process and O/S, an SSD drive will do that as well. However SSD drives are not cost effective for data storage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
I went through this decision also a while ago... I did some benchmarks and came up with these results:
SSD/RAID/SINGLE


There is quite an improvement across the board but nowhere near that of an SSD. I am used to the speed of my RAID and single drives seem quite slow to me now. It's a nice speed boost installing programs, copying big files, doing video work, ect... stuff it's not economical to do on the OS only SSD.

As others said it boils down to risk loosing data in a failure vs higher overall performance. IMO A backup (which should be done anyway) takes the risks away leaving only the benefits!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
What is surprising is that RAID0 can be more than twice as fast for some operations. That jives with my experience. I suspect that is due to there being more cache available or maybe some drive optimizations in the RAID driver. I haven't used RAID0 on SATA2 drives but haven't really found the need either. Any drive I have used is plenty fast enough. I used RAID0 with IDE100 drives because they were not fast enough for recording and playing HD. With things like video editing and processing, using one drive for the input file and another for the output will provide better speed increases than RAID0.

p.s. Some of those 4k operations are suspiciously slow. Some 4k boundary alignment issues on newer drives perhaps?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,818 Posts
In 2010, I recommend RAID0 to no one.
What I do recommend is an SSD for what you want super fast operations on (e.g. OS+programs) and then a fast HDD for bulk storage.
Do you really need your TV recording or photos of that vacation to load at 200MB/s? Probably not :p

The SSD also gives you (nearly) non-existant seek times, so even if the transfer rate is slower, it still "feels" faster.

In other words, it's a bit more expensive (you get less storage space for the money), but you have a single drive setup and don't run the risks of single disk failure killing the array. (just be sure to perform regular backups of your data, or this point is meaningless! :p)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I swapped to RAID 0 a few years back, I like it.

Fairly cheap upgrade in speed. Then again my computer is just built for gaming so if it died the worst I would lose is saved progress. I have a NAS box for backups though either way.

INTEL MATRIX RAID can do RAID10 with partitions (vs. drives), but drives are cheap enough I think to just get a second for a backup.

Today though, get an SSD for OS and appplications, the price has dropped significantly in the last years.

So the short answer, don't RAID, but SSD + HDD for storage. You will like the speed increase in everything you do :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
Raypundo, your great advice may be about 14 days late for thedude but yes, I just went Intel X25 40 GB SSD with Win7, lets just say, fastest boot, 48 seconds, yes I timed it...LOL

On that note, my defrag program does not see the SSD drive...no need to run Defragmentation with an SSD....COOL

GT5 ROCKS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
980 Posts
48 seconds on a SSD is a failure to me. I run win7 on a WD raptor (in case your unfimiliar with it, its a HDD that runs at 10 000rpm instead of your more typical 5400 or 7200 rpm drive) and I know i boot alot quicker then that,, let me try it out here..
ok so takes 42sec to boot from post, post takes me 7 seconds..
as you can see id expect much more performance of a SSD, probably like 25sec boot??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
I have a buddy that switched to SSD as his boot drive and he didn't see much improvement in boot time either (Windows 7). Ultimately it wasn't disk speed that was hindering that. He did see significant improvement in program load times however.

I'm thinking about an SSD drive myself for the boot disk and some frequently used programs - especially as I sit here staring at two bad WD Raptor 160 GB drives. Sniff.

-Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Where I see a big improvement with an SSD drive is in post boot program loading. The initial boot time is largely processor bound. It's all those nasty little processes and resident programs that load after the initial Windows boot that slow my PC start time down.

no need to run Defragmentation with an SSD
Conventional wisdom says that is true due to the lack of physical head seek time. Some people say that defragging may be necessary if files become fragmented within logical sectors. Accessing a sector still takes time. If too many partial sectors need to be read to access a file, it will slow an SSD down so defragging could be beneficial. Not sure how valid that is or if it is true for all SSD drives or operating systems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I wouldn't advise Raid 0 on its own, but I've been running 0 & 1 for several years (requires 4 HDs) and I love it. When a drive fails, no problem ... hot swap a new one! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
I've been running 0 & 1 for several years
AKA RAID10. The same reliability can be achieved with RAID5 and three drives. RAID6 provides better reliability with 4 drives, for the same capacity, but scales better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Bob..thanks so much for your posts. I learn something new from you every time , it seems. Just another of the many helpful and knowledgable people on DHC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,357 Posts
AKA RAID10.
RAID10 and RAID0+1 differ slightly... RAID10 is a striped array whose segments are RAID 1 arrays. RAID 0+1 is a mirrored array whose segments are RAID 0 arrays.

A single drive failure in a RAID0+1 setup will cause the whole array to become, in essence, a RAID Level 0 array.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top