If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Hi there,
I am planning on building a new computer system. Given the current cheap price and massive capacity of hard drives, I am thinking of using a raid array. To me, raid 1 seems the ideal solution. Raid 1 greatly improves data security, which is very important to me (and why I would never go with raid 0). Theoretically, the performance of raid 1 should also be what I want. Reads can be split across the two drives, leading to greater read performance, while write performance might be slower. Given the way I use the computer, read performance will help when it boots up, loads applications, loads games, etc. On the other hand, the poorer write performance will be less of an issue as much less is written to the disk during typical use, and I tend to just leave the computer when installing new programs (when large amounts of information does need to be written to the disk). Despite raid 1 seeming to be ideal, the read performance on current motherboard raid chipsets shows little to no improvement compared to that of a single drive: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...d/index.x?pg=1 Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
"Mark" wrote in message
... Hi there, I am planning on building a new computer system. Given the current cheap price and massive capacity of hard drives, I am thinking of using a raid array. To me, raid 1 seems the ideal solution. Raid 1 greatly improves data security, which is very important to me (and why I would never go with raid 0). Theoretically, the performance of raid 1 should also be what I want. Reads can be split across the two drives, leading to greater read performance, while write performance might be slower. Given the way I use the computer, read performance will help when it boots up, loads applications, loads games, etc. On the other hand, the poorer write performance will be less of an issue as much less is written to the disk during typical use, and I tend to just leave the computer when installing new programs (when large amounts of information does need to be written to the disk). Despite raid 1 seeming to be ideal, the read performance on current motherboard raid chipsets shows little to no improvement compared to that of a single drive: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...d/index.x?pg=1 Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? No! Raid 1 exists solely for data preservation ...you may be thinking of RAID 1+0 which will give you redundancy plus a performance gain without requiring a RAID 5 capable controller but as far as RAID 1 is concerned you are mistaken in your belief that it will or should boost performance. btb |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Mark wrote:
Hi there, I am planning on building a new computer system. Given the current cheap price and massive capacity of hard drives, I am thinking of using a raid array. To me, raid 1 seems the ideal solution. Raid 1 greatly improves data security, which is very important to me (and why I would never go with raid 0). Theoretically, the performance of raid 1 should also be what I want. Reads can be split across the two drives, leading to greater read performance, while write performance might be slower. Given the way I use the computer, read performance will help when it boots up, loads applications, loads games, etc. On the other hand, the poorer write performance will be less of an issue as much less is written to the disk during typical use, and I tend to just leave the computer when installing new programs (when large amounts of information does need to be written to the disk). Despite raid 1 seeming to be ideal, the read performance on current motherboard raid chipsets shows little to no improvement compared to that of a single drive: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...d/index.x?pg=1 Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? Why do you actually need improved read performance ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Previously Mark wrote:
Hi there, I am planning on building a new computer system. Given the current cheap price and massive capacity of hard drives, I am thinking of using a raid array. To me, raid 1 seems the ideal solution. Raid 1 greatly improves data security, It improves safety. It does nothing at all for security. which is very important to me (and why I would never go with raid 0). Theoretically, the performance of raid 1 should also be what I want. Reads can be split across the two drives, leading to greater read performance, while write performance might be slower. Given the way I use the computer, read performance will help when it boots up, loads applications, loads games, etc. On the other hand, the poorer write performance will be less of an issue as much less is written to the disk during typical use, and I tend to just leave the computer when installing new programs (when large amounts of information does need to be written to the disk). Despite raid 1 seeming to be ideal, the read performance on current motherboard raid chipsets shows little to no improvement compared to that of a single drive: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...d/index.x?pg=1 Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? Maybe, but it is not necessaruly done. E.g. Linux software RAID does not speed up reads either. I don't quite know why, but there is RAID10 where you combine a RAID0 layer and a RAID1 layer to get speed and reliability, but also wor writes. My guess is that speeding up reads is not enough of an issue to do RAID0 like reading into the drivers/chips just for reading. Arno |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Bruce T. Berger wrote:
Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? No! Raid 1 exists solely for data preservation ... Well, actually /my/ performance increased since I use RAID1 and don't have to worry about the next disruptive hard drive crash anymore Really, IMO there's little reason to run any computer that's used to store critical data without RAID1 (or one of its derivatives). Gerhard |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Previously Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Bruce T. Berger wrote: Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? No! Raid 1 exists solely for data preservation ... Well, actually /my/ performance increased since I use RAID1 and don't have to worry about the next disruptive hard drive crash anymore Very true! Arno |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Bruce T. Berger wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message ... Hi there, I am planning on building a new computer system. Given the current cheap price and massive capacity of hard drives, I am thinking of using a raid array. To me, raid 1 seems the ideal solution. Raid 1 greatly improves data security, which is very important to me (and why I would never go with raid 0). Theoretically, the performance of raid 1 should also be what I want. Reads can be split across the two drives, leading to greater read performance, while write performance might be slower. Given the way I use the computer, read performance will help when it boots up, loads applications, loads games, etc. On the other hand, the poorer write performance will be less of an issue as much less is written to the disk during typical use, and I tend to just leave the computer when installing new programs (when large amounts of information does need to be written to the disk). Despite raid 1 seeming to be ideal, the read performance on current motherboard raid chipsets shows little to no improvement compared to that of a single drive: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...d/index.x?pg=1 Is it possible to get improved read performance using raid 1?? No! Raid 1 exists solely for data preservation ...you may be thinking of RAID 1+0 which will give you redundancy plus a performance gain without requiring a RAID 5 capable controller but as far as RAID 1 is concerned you are mistaken in your belief that it will or should boost performance. btb It is certainly possible with RAID1 to get better read throughput than with a single HD, since RAID1 has twice as many on-disk read channels and twice as many seek mechanisms. But, any increased read performance depends on the workload (to have multiple reads outstanding) and on the RAID driver (to not serialize the multiple outstanding reads). I do agree that the primary reason for deploying RAID1 is data integrity rather than performance, but modest performance gains have certainly been measured (by me and by others) with good RAID1 implementations. -- Cheers, Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Well, actually /my/ performance increased since I use RAID1 and don't have
to worry about the next disruptive hard drive crash anymore But it doesn't mean that you should do nothing when one drive fails. Really, IMO there's little reason to run any computer that's used to store critical data without RAID1 (or one of its derivatives). As little as a hundred bucks for a second disk and a new MB, if current does not support RAID. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
In , Bob Willard wrote:
since RAID1 has twice as many on-disk read channels and twice as many seek mechanisms. Yes, but also _any_ read is done twice, on both channels and both mechanisms (and furthermore they are then checked for equality between, which adds a step, which could be a reason for misperformance). I do not see why you could see improvements, any other things being equal of course. What am I missing here? Antoine |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Poor raid 1 performance?
Why do you actually need improved read performance ?
He wants his computer to boot up faster and load games faster. To some people an extra 10-20 seconds is eternity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poll (please): Time-shifting Performance | Bryan Hoover | Ati Videocards | 1 | December 15th 04 11:56 PM |
Question about performance | The Berzerker | Ati Videocards | 1 | September 27th 04 09:25 PM |
G400 & G-series RR performance question. | Kevin Lawton | Matrox Videocards | 6 | May 20th 04 09:51 PM |
Maximum System Bus Speed | David Maynard | Overclocking | 41 | April 14th 04 10:47 PM |
Geforce 4 2D/desktop performance in WinXP | zmike6 | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | August 29th 03 07:41 AM |