what stripe size for 2x74Gb Raptors ?

Mr Spoon

Mr Spoon

Mr Spoon

Associate
Joined
22 Apr 2003
Posts
624
Location
Button Moon
I've read through loads of threads and there seems to be mixed advice, so whats the current thought ?

My system is purely for games such as Battlefield 2, CS:S etc.

thanx.
 
oh, another thing which to use FAT32 or NTFS ? i always use FAT32 cause i can see the drives from a simple boot disk and the last time i tried NTFS it had poor performance (ie more stuttery in games).
 
Mr Spoon:

I used a 32KB stripe with a 4KB cluster (XP default) size, NTFS. It is recommended for best results that your stripe size should be no more than 4x the cluster size. I didn't find this to be the case with my set up!

I had 2 x 74GBs Raptors on an ICH5R controller in RAID0, I have posted an HD Tach image in the past, if you do a search in the Hard Drive forum you should be able to locate it if you wish to have a look at it. :)
 
i went for 64k FAT32 in the end ( i never had any probs with FAT32)

HDTach shows a constant 110Mb/s but this doesn't degrade towards the end like a lot of peoples benchmarks do. A lot of people say that benchmark results do not equal real life results and that larger stripes (ie 64k +) would benefit larger file access.

with a single drive the i was getting about 55 Mb/s so its definatly worth going for RAID imo.
anyone raided the new 150Gb Raptors yet ? :)
 
FAT32 sucks compared to NTFS!

: DATA Integrity (NTFS has/does journalling)
:Packet efficiency (Does a better job of managing space on the hard drive, due to the size of packets it can write.)
:Windows XP works better/more efficient with NTFS
:Security (Although people in the know can ripp apart NTFS's file security np)
:Support for multiple data streams (FAT32 simply cannot do this)
:Built-in file compression (FAT32 does not have this feature)
:No single file size Limitation (The maximum possible file size for a FAT32 volume is 4 GiB minus 1 byte (232-1 bytes)
....etc.....etc

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm
 
i dont think i want journallnig - sounds like an overhead.
dont really care if its not as efficient on disk space.
dont really care about encryption or compression.
never had an issue with file limit of 4Gb,

so why else should i switch ?

not convinced yet :)
 
I just dont understand someone useing fat32 when you can use NTFS which is far superior!

I have seen and herd so many horror storys of data coruption useing fat32 i just dont get the need to use it.

Each to there own i guess! Iam just not into bi monthly re formats!
 
Mr Spoon said:
i dont think i want journallnig - sounds like an overhead.
dont really care if its not as efficient on disk space.
dont really care about encryption or compression.
never had an issue with file limit of 4Gb,

so why else should i switch ?

not convinced yet :)
Click to expand...


Get with times mate, this debate was had in the windows 98 era, convert it to ntfs and reap the benefits my friend, i want winfs when its out!

If you need convincing of file systems, convert to linux, great OS, only for the advanced user though
 
I agree with all the above. TBH, you did ask us whch format and everyone said NTFS yet you still went with FAT32 :rolleyes:. NTFS is FAR superior to FAT32 - it's up to you in the end but I can't see more than a handful of people saying FAT32...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom