Raid question

by **Schrapnel** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:14 am

I have a raid system in my computer, I am only currently running 1 10,000 rpm drive on it. It is my understanding that with a RAID system, 2 harddrives work at the same with a mirror image to each other, when the HD's are working they both send information at the same time, doubling the information speed, is this correct? Is it worth buying another HD, or is it not that much faster?

Schrapnel

by **LordShard** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:27 am

they take turns sending.
whileone is filling up it's cache the other will be sending info, then they switch. It's still allot faster.

by **PudriK** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:34 am

Someone more knowledgeable can provide a better answer, but to reply immediately, there are different types of RAID. For example, RAID 0 treats multiple drives as one large one, so you get axtra capacity, but if one fails, all fail. RAID 1, which is what you're talking about, mirrors data across multiple drives, so you get faster read times and redundancy. There are other types which use more disks to both mirror and spread data, but I think require more than two drives. See: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html

by **SHWoff** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:40 am

It depends on how you have the RAID set up. For a basic definition of the different RAID levels, go here

For more info, go here

by **LordShard** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:42 am

Originally posted by PudriK
Someone more knowledgeable can provide a better answer, but to reply immediately, there are different types of RAID. For example, RAID 0 treats multiple drives as one large one, so you get axtra capacity, but if one fails, all fail. RAID 1, which is what you're talking about, mirrors data across multiple drives, so you get faster read times and redundancy. There are other types which use more disks to both mirror and spread data, but I think require more than two drives. See: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html

Raid 5 requires 3. 1 drive stores parity info. (well not really just one drive, they all do but that is about how much you loose to it)
If you have raid 5 with 4 drives, you loose 25% or one drives worth, 5 drives you loose 20% and so on.

by **PudriK** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:43 am

Check out this guide (http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=830&page=10) too.

Also, seems I had it a bit confused... RAID 0 increases performance more than RAID 1.

by **Hat Rack** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:06 pm

Hey Schap why are you not on TS anymore?

by **nickmarine** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:46 pm

Hello,
I run 2xWD Raptor @10k rpm on my system which was built for gaming. If you have a need for RAID then go ahead and spend the money but if you will just be doing gaming save your money. RAID can be very cool and fast for large file transfer as in RAID 0 because half of the file is saved on each drive which means either drive only has to move and store half as much data and is faster to store and retrieve. The advantage in gaming is almost none and if you have a system issue like I had once you loose everything in both drives because half is worthless.

by **nickmarine** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:52 pm

I hit the wrong button and finished early on that last one. The bottom line is don't build a RAID for gaming because it's a waste of money. If you need a massive storage solution with large amounts of data being transfered or maybe a video editing system then by all means. I try very hard to keep my system tuned by deleting games I no longer play and applications that I don't use and pictures I have backed up already and then I run Crap Cleaner and Ad-aware and Spybot and Norton and Defrag at least once a week. I also do other things but remember this is my game only system and I want every single FPS that my system can produce.

Nick

by **tek** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:41 pm

Its funny to see people post about RAID not being good for gaming. When the reality is thats 100% incorrect.

RAID0 uses two drives and stripes your data across those drives, meaning any file you access will be accessed faster.
There are alot of variables thou, hardware raid vs software raid, stripe size, etc. And there are draw backs, for example in RAID0 if you loose one drive, you loose all your data for the obvious reason.

For gaming thou, thats usually not a problem. Personally, I have 2 RAID arrays in my system, a RAID5 on 4 WD800JBs.
The second is a RAID0 with two 36GB Raptors(10k RPM SATA). The RAID5 array is my OS and other essential files, while the RAID0 is my games and and other stuff.

All of it is hardware RAID on Promise Technology RAID cards, nothing cheap and no motherboard controlled RAID controllers and most importantly no elaborate partitioning.

The performance of my drives is phenominal, I also use Diskeeper from Executive Software to keep everything Defragged, it runs everynight inside an hour window I alloted to it. I do not have any sort of active anti-virus running. I don't run any background processes unless they are essential. I'll put it this way, if you can keep your process count below 24 at startup and RAM used below 150Megs.. In general your system is pretty well tuned for overall performance.

Note: You can run RAID0 on a single drive, but you will see no performance gains at all, but most all other RAID modes require additional drives.

by **Schrapnel** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:46 pm

It is a Raid5 system on my computer, the computer's principle function is gaming so if it is not a big help for loading speeds ect, I see no point in spending the money on another HD. Thanks for all the advice.

Schrapnel

Hat Rack, usually when playing BF2 I just use the squad chat, not that very many people say much for some reason..I have to do some setup changes for TS and such, I always used voice activated TS and that gets messed up with the squad chat. I will get it fixed up soon, gaming just isn't the same without chattin with you guys.

by **tek** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:57 pm

Wait, RAID5 on one drive? Not possible, well not probable. As any controller I have worked with will not allow you to setup a RAID5 on a single drive, it will require 3 at minimal.

It sounds like you might have something setup wrong. And RAID5 when used with multiple drives will yield better performance than RAID0. Essentially, the more the drives, the better the performance the higher the cost. The age old addage applies.

Pick two you cannot have all three: Good Cheap Fast

Good and Fast = Not Cheap
Good and Cheap = Not Fast
Fast and Cheap = Not Good

by **Schrapnel** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:11 pm

When I log onto my windows xp profile, the raid controller window pops up, I just close it and carry on. I have not done any setup work to it, because quite frankly i don't know how yet. I do have 2 HDs already installed, one is just an IDE cable type that I use for storage of music ect. the other one is the 10,000 rpm HD that I run OS on and my games. If I was to get the Raid going, I would buy another HD to match the one I have so that it would not be slowed down by a slower HD.

Schrapnel

by **tek** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:10 pm

To make it worth while.. and not have you come back at me(us). I'd strongly, very strongly suggest that you learn more about what exactly your RAID controller is, and what its features and capabilites are.

Then if your system is satisfactory go ahead and look into getting another drive to match and setup a RAID.

by **EZC** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:30 pm

. Im reading this stuff and all i see is a nerd fight waiting to happen. Homo Sapiens get ur pocketprotectors ready.

Raid question

Raid question

Who is online