is raid 0 worth it ????

Michael.T

Michael.T

Michael.T

Associate
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Posts
125
Hi all

its years since i ran a raid 0 array

i run a spinpoint 320gb F1 drive as my root drive.

would it be worth it to get another to run them in raid
i see a lot of magazines and website say that nowadays there isnt any real benift from running a raid 0 in real life

i mainly use my machine as a game machine (crysis/farcry/sup commander/tiberium wars)

any opinions ?

many thanks
 
Yes and no. You need to have a good backup strategy in place, and assuming you get another 320GB F1, that will be 640GB odd worth of data on the array, which is a bit too much to risk for me.

Personally, if you want to go down the RAID0 route, id get some cheaper smaller 120 / 160GB drives and use the 320GB F1 for your documents and / or backup.
 
Yes it is, I think it makes a difference. If you can do it, why not? Windows feels snappier definately for me. I wanted to raid 2x320gb RE3s because of the speed.
 
Yea its definately a lot quicker, especially with file transfers. The first time I installed RAID 0 I was gobsmacked at how quicker Windows was. But you do kinda get use to it though so after time you cant really tell if its quick or not, in comparison.
 
i must admit when i used to run raid (quite a while ago:))
it was always a lot snappier in windows and games used to load a lot faster
hmm looks like im in the market for a 47gid raptor LOL:D
 
RAID 0 made Windows feel a lot snappier for me. Moving files around, loading etc. - everything felt quicker. Unfortunately the RAID array failed probably due to the fact that I was trying to overclock as far as possible at the time. Everything critical was backed up but it was still a pain in the arse.

I'm planning to get two Velociraptors and RAID 0 them again now I've found a sensible stable overclock.
 
You will only really notice any real performance difference from using RAID0 over a single HDD, when you are working with (coping/moving) and unzipping large (video) files, for all other tasks there is not really any performance gain...from my experience anyway. :)
 
Nanoman said:
Yea its definately a lot quicker, especially with file transfers. The first time I installed RAID 0 I was gobsmacked at how quicker Windows was. But you do kinda get use to it though so after time you cant really tell if its quick or not, in comparison.
Click to expand...

lol - this is exactly how I felt when moving over to raid 0, especially when moving up to 3 and 4 disk arrays. I couldn't go back now to a single disk. I think I got addicted a bit, I'm up to a 6 disk raid 0 array currently and still looking for more...
 
Setup my first RAID0 on new PC.
2xSamsung F1 320's

Burst spead hits 2078.3
But sequential is all over the place.


128k Stripe

I RAID0'd the drives then slapped a partition on them, is this where I went wrong?
The HD Tach on the 2nd volume is even worse.



So the HDD is split as follows:

C: 199 - Windows
E: 221 - Games
F: 173 - Empty atm
Unused ~2Gb (for storage of utilities/apps for reinstalling)

Im beginning to think I should have just used 1 RAID volume and put everything on there with the third F1 purely for storage.

Ive kept an image of my install so if I need to reinstall that shouldnt be too much trouble just means reinstallin a coupla games.

So has my RAID 0 been fubared by the partitions?
 
There's a really long thread on this subject somewhere on this forum and unfortunately there was no consensus as to whether it's worth it or not.

Pros:
  • Better file transfer speed
  • *Some* users report snappier general performance but I wonder sometimes if it's just because they've bought new hard disks.
  • Pretty benchmarks
  • Allows you to treat multiple hard disks as one large volume.
Cons:
  • Increased risk of loosing data; if one drive fails, the entire array does.
  • Twice the cost (if you bought one at a later date, not really needing the extra capacity)
  • More power usage, more heat generated, more cabling required.
  • Performance increases shown in benchmark utilities simply do not match real world usage.
I switched to RAID 0 recently after using RAID 1 for a short while then quickly realising I needed more capacity for the stupidly sized game installs these days.

Just don't put any unbacked-up data on a RAID 0 please people! Better yet, don't put any data on a RAID 0 array at all.
 
Major_Disaster said:
Yes and no. You need to have a good backup strategy in place, and assuming you get another 320GB F1, that will be 640GB odd worth of data on the array, which is a bit too much to risk for me.
Click to expand...

Never understood this. You have enough room for 640GB of data, just because it's there doesn't mean you're going to use it all. Aslong as you do periodic updates of vital data you could probably get away with a 320gb.

Even if it was the case, 640GB drives for backup are quite cheap now.
 
Instead of making another topic, I'll just sneak my question in here ;)

I have 1 500gb drive at the moment, with a 250gb backing up important music/video/anything. Theres only about 40gb being used on the 250 and about 100gb being used on the 500 - could I add a partition to the 250 and then transfer over the main hdd using a clone hdd program?

Then after doing that, and putting a 2nd drive in for RAID 0, could I clone it back, so the data is distributed evenly over both drives?

Sounds confusing !

My goal is to have RAID 0 with my 250gb external HDD as a backup for things I put on there.
 
Yes, you could partition a Single External HDD to allow you to clone your Raid0 to it.

If your Raid0 messed up you could then clone back from the Single External HDD as the Splitting of files is done by the SATA Raid Controller on your Mobo.

I think this is what you were asking.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom