RAID 0 - How fast?

For Raid 0 it works like this:
Reaid 0 needs at least 2 drives minimum to work hence Raid.

2 Drives is 2 x faster
3 Drives is 3 x faster
4 Drives is 4 x faster

Thats the theory because it writes bits of the data accross multiple drives.
 
You won't see anywhere near 2x the performance with 2 drives.
It is faster but the margin isn't actually that much in reality.

Jokester
 
WesleyBurns said:
so i guess two Latest Segate 250GB's would beat a raptor then? just adding up the costs/perf.

The Seagate 7200.10s aren't supposed to be all that far off a Raptors speed in some tests as a standalone drive however I probably wouldn't recommend a 500gb Raid0 system unless you have a good reason. That is a lot of data to risk, if you have a good backup system or don't care about the data then it is your choice but there are relatively few uses that actually utilise Raid0 properly - large-scale graphics/video/audio processing being the only ones that spring to mind, you need large file sizes and sustained read/write to get the best from it.
 
for every day use its something like 1.3x as fast, im guessing. the only time you see any real benefit is when you are moving large amouts of data around - 1gb files for example - thats when you see a difference.
 
zen62619 said:
For Raid 0 it works like this:
Reaid 0 needs at least 2 drives minimum to work hence Raid.

2 Drives is 2 x faster
3 Drives is 3 x faster
4 Drives is 4 x faster

Thats the theory because it writes bits of the data accross multiple drives.

Theory, but nowhere near that. Might be 1.5x faster on a good day but mostly you won't see that much of a difference unless you deal with really huge files etc.
 
Jokester said:
You won't see anywhere near 2x the performance with 2 drives.
It is faster but the margin isn't actually that much in reality.
I used to run RAID stripe (until one of the hard drives died) and the performance was between 5-10% at most.

I ran a disk test before I set up RAID and afterwards and compared them.
 
Jokester said:
You won't see anywhere near 2x the performance with 2 drives.
It is faster but the margin isn't actually that much in reality.

Jokester

I have 2 x 74 GB Raptors (8MB cache) in RAID0, on an ICH5R controller, and I get an Average read in HDTach of just over 130MB/s; and on a single Raptor, I get just over 65MB/s, the RAID0 is actually twice as fast in regards to Average read values at any rate.

Abit-2x74GBRaptorsonICH5RRAID0.jpg


I reckon you don't get the same speed with all controllers.

EDIT:

I should say, I've no wish to be controversal. :)
 
Last edited:
WesleyBurns said:
Hi all, just an interesting question

Just how fast is RAID 0 striping, compared to lets say a stand alone WD Raptor?


I had two 36 raptors in Raid 0 as my boot drive.

My 150 GIG raptor as my boot drive is faster.I could not go back and not have a raptor as a boot drive.

If editing then a 2x 300 gb raid 0 stripe can offer great performance.But for storage of data long term there is no point.
 
jbloggs said:
I reckon you don't get the same speed with all controllers.

Most will all give similar performance though some are better than others, but HD performance (especially RAID systems) in synthetic benchmarks significantly over estimate real world performance in my experience, HDtach is particularly bad in my opinion.

Jokester
 
Jokester said:
Most will all give similar performance though some are better than others, but HD performance (especially RAID systems) in synthetic benchmarks significantly over estimate real world performance in my experience, HDtach is particularly bad in my opinion.

Jokester

Agreed,

In a real world scenario it only comes into its own when dealing with massive files etc..
 
easyrider wrote:

it only comes into its own when dealing with massive files

I would certainly agree with this, and this is the only reason I use RAID0, I find it very good for moving/copying and extracting large zipped files. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom