Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 711 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s September 20 - 04:33am EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Hard Drives /
 

  RAID 0 - How much performance do you get? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, Next >>
Dublin_Gunner Apr 20, 2007, 08:41am EDT Report Abuse
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969&p=8
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=10


Hmm, virtually none, at least in a home type PC in a 2 disk array on the motherboard controller.

So is RAIDing worth the risk at home? Nope, not in the slightest.

Sure, enterprise level RAID arrays on dedicated controllers offer benefits when mssive amounts of data are continuously being served.

So apart from having a bigger e-penis and benchmarking, RAID 0 offers basically no performance increase in real world tests.


Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Beavis Khan Apr 20, 2007, 09:07am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
DublinGunner said:
So is RAIDing worth the risk at home? Nope, not in the slightest.


So I don't really disagree with this conclusion in principle - but, I thought that was a really poorly done article. One mention of stripe size (left at default), no mention of the potential effects of stripe size on performance, no measurements of the tasks that RAID 0 typically excels at (eg video editing, manipulating high res image files, etc), and then my favorite, copying 8GB of files from a single raptor and wondering why the performance of the RAID 0 array doesn't exceed that of a single raptor. Well...frickin DUH! :/ But I guess if one wanted to write an article that would show that RAID 0 wasn't worth a damn, that would be the way to go.

I think it would have been much more interesting had they skipped all the other tests of single drives as well (Seagate 320GB vs 750GB? Who gives as**t!) and tried a few more variations on stripe size. Hmm, I've got a couple brand new 320GB WD RE drives sitting here in a box...maybe I should put my money where my mouth is and do my own benchmarks :P

(Of course, they're been sitting in a box for a week because I don't have time to install them, let alone benchmark them lol)

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken
shuja rahman Apr 20, 2007, 10:10am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Can some one please tell me, how to configure raid, when it is need, and wht are the advantage i will get

Intel Core2Duo E6420
Intel S975Xbx2
Kingston 1x2 gig ram
120 G.B Sata 2
625 PSU
XFX 7800GT
Dublin_Gunner Apr 20, 2007, 10:12am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Well you see, their benchmarks with synthetic programs indicated that the Raid 0 with 2 disks appeared to show massive improvements in throughput, whereas in actual real world application, the difference was minimal, or none.

I would have a feeling that while the stripe size may have an effect of continous tranfers of large amounts of data, and synthetic benchmarks, the difference n real world application at the desktop level would be minimal at best.

Sure, the articles dont go through every optionavailble, nor claim to. But they do give a general idea of the performance you should expect while employing a 2 disk stripe in a desktop environment utilising an onboard SATA controller.

i.e. the vast majority of desktop setups.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Beavis Khan Apr 20, 2007, 10:27am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
DublinGunner said:
I would have a feeling that while the stripe size may have an effect of continous tranfers of large amounts of data, and synthetic benchmarks, the difference n real world application at the desktop level would be minimal at best.


Oh no question that's generally true - I guess my point is just that it seemed clear from the setup of the tests that they knew what they wanted to show before they ever tried it, and tailored the article accordingly. The place to use RAID 0 is in tasks where you're bound by the disk throughput performance...and they really didn't pick a single instance (aside from benchmarks) where that was the case. Nor did they even explore the possibility that they'd skipped over such scenarios...

Edit - I guess I should realize that many people think RAID 0 automagically makes all disk-based tasks twice as fast, and that's what they were trying to debunk. But from the perspective of someone who already sees that as obviously false, the article seemed a little....less than fully honest.

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken
Dublin_Gunner Apr 20, 2007, 10:40am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
I agree that it can be assumed that they were merely trying to show that striping 2 disks in a desktop platform offers no real tangable benefit, and quite obviously tailored the review the show that.

I would however, like to see a review of RAID 0 (or more likely RAID 5, or a more redundant solution) performance with a larger array of disks, on an enterprise level platform with continual large data transfers. I would imagine that benchmarking the performance of such a set up (at least from the data passing through the controller) would be a fairly simple thing to do.

Obviously, if you're talking network wide, there are a lot of other things to consider, not least network performance.

In fairness though, what they targeted; general RAID 0 performance on a typical desktop setup, is probably close enough to the mark.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
El Apr 20, 2007, 11:12am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
It may be all in my head, but I just went from a RAID0 with 2 80GB SATA drives to reformatting with XP on one drive and games installed on the another. I swear now games are running smoother! Maybe?

Sander Sassen Apr 20, 2007, 12:24pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
I've been saying that for years, but nobody seems to care what I say anyway. If you do want to RAID you're better off just using RAID1 (mirroring) instead. If one of your HDs fails (which happens to 1000s of people every day) you don't lose all your stuff. Trust me, when that HD finally bites the dust, and you lose all your documents, photos, videos, etc and there no way to retrieve them, you wish you had, it is well worth the money and the effort.

Best regards,

Sander Sassen
Editor in Chief - Hardware Analysis
ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com
Beavis Khan Apr 20, 2007, 01:19pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Sander Sassen said:
IIf you do want to RAID you're better off just using RAID1 (mirroring) instead. If one of your HDs fails (which happens to 1000s of people every day) you don't lose all your stuff.


Absolutely...just as long as no one mistakes RAID 1 for a "real" backup system. There are plenty of ways to kill a volume without one of the disks failing. But RAID1 at least gives you a chance to rebuild things on your own terms if a disk does fail...

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken
PCP777 Apr 20, 2007, 02:21pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Kind of off topic but something that came up today regarding hard drives...

Is there a big performance difference with SATA hard drives that have an 8 MB buffer compared to a 16MB buffer?

Is that going to be any kind of significant performance factor?

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.0GHz
1022MB RAM
ABIT
300 GB Seagate SATA
NVIDIA GeForce 512 MB 7950 GT
Creative Audigy 2 Gamers Edition
Saitek
Emprex
Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack
Dublin_Gunner Apr 20, 2007, 02:41pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
For the average user, not at all.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Mike L. Apr 20, 2007, 05:04pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
DublinGunner said:
Well you see, their benchmarks with synthetic programs indicated that the Raid 0 with 2 disks appeared to show massive improvements in throughput, whereas in actual real world application, the difference was minimal, or none.


But that's the whole point of going with a RAID 0 setup. If all you do is sit at home writing e-mails to your family half way across the world and doing up spreadsheets in Excel, then yeah, RAID 0 is more than pointless. But, if you rip and/or encode a lot of DVDs, edit audio etc., then of course RAID 0 will be extremely beneficial to you. It all depends on what you're using it for; simple.

___________________________________________
I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
mothow Apr 20, 2007, 05:31pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Just having Raid 0 in my Sig made my PC about 20% faster i swear

ASRock Z97 Extreme 4 / i7 4790K / Corsair H80i / 4x4GB Crucial Ballistix Smart Tracer DDR3 1600 / 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black / 240GB Mushkin Chronos Deluxe SSD / 2x Evga GTX 670 FTW 2GB in SLI / Sound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty / Corsair HX1000w
Mike L. Apr 20, 2007, 11:03pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Not to mention the bold format as well ... :P

___________________________________________
I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
SuPeR Xp Apr 20, 2007, 11:33pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Pure Hard Disk Performance? Raid 0 kicks ass big time. I also notice a benefit in gaming with my RAID 0 setup.

-------------------------------------------------
Custom AMD HAF 932 Red Dragon GAMING MOD!!!
http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2442.html
FordGT90Concept Apr 21, 2007, 12:18am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
How long it takes to error check, erase, and format is enough reason for me. Without RAID0, my two 250 GB drives take about an hour each to erase. With RAID0, it only takes an hour to do both because it is writing to them simultaneously. Those are performance figures I can count on.

The same benefit is seen with RAID1 as well. Making two hard drives run the same task at once is far faster than doing them separately.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
<a class= Apr 21, 2007, 01:33am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
All of that is so untrue. I remember when I got my first two raptors to replace my 60 gig drive, my programs were FLYING. I couldn't believe the loading speed in my games. The difference between 1 7200 rpm drive and two raptors is astounishing. 2 vs 4, not so much.

_______________________________________________________
3930K @ 5.00Ghz | GA-X79-UD3P | 16Gb DDR3 | GTX770 | W7 x64
Mike L. Apr 21, 2007, 02:00am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
Well, you have to remember that a Raptor is extremely high quality and does spin at 10,000RPM - which is considerably faster than 7,200RPM. So two of those compared to two of your regular old "Joe Schmoe" hard drives is going to be drastically different.

___________________________________________
I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
Chris McNally Apr 21, 2007, 04:35am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
I've seen all the articles on raid 0 not improving real world performance, but I have to disagree. I clearly remember when I first started using raid 0, the difference in overall performance (especially loading Windows at startup and games levels) was quite large and very noticable, using two regular IDE drives. Interestingly, when I swapped those out for 2 74GB raptors in raid 0, the difference was quite small. I ran some timing tests way back when too, and I recall that loading a Far Cry level was some 8-10 seconds faster using raid 0.

Regards,

Chris McNally

Moderator - Hardware Analysis
E-mail: chris@hardwareanalysis.com
Dublin_Gunner Apr 21, 2007, 07:57am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
FordGT90Concept said:
How long it takes to error check, erase, and format is enough reason for me. Without RAID0, my two 250 GB drives take about an hour each to erase. With RAID0, it only takes an hour to do both because it is writing to them simultaneously. Those are performance figures I can count on.

The same benefit is seen with RAID1 as well. Making two hard drives run the same task at once is far faster than doing them separately.


That makes no sense whatsoever. You're still checking the same physical area on each disk, I have no idea how raid could speed that up.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
FordGT90Concept Apr 21, 2007, 08:18am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: RAID 0 - How much performance do you get?
All those tasks I listed can only be performed at a time (scan disk goes by partition while erasing goes by drive--virtual or physical). In order to erase two hard drives separately, you have to do one, then the other. If they were combined into a virtual drive using RAID1 or RAID0, the software effectively writes to both drives at the same time. It takes an hour to do it in RAID0 or RAID1 and it takes two hours to erase them when not in any RAID configuration (1 + 1).

By the way, I'm talking working in DOS here in the steps prior to installing the OS.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.