A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interesting someone posted a link in the ABIT group - no benefits from RAID 0



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 4th 04, 12:25 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Interesting someone posted a link in the ABIT group - no benefits from RAID 0

Well no practical benefits on DESKTOP PCs not servers obviously . The
article points out artificial benchmarks come out much better but not
real world use.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...tml?i=2101&p=1


Im flabbergasted because thats exactly what I posted before. Id read
it didnt make much difference and that benchmarks came out OK but not
a big difference in real world performance. This was long long ago.
But then as I posted in the other group I could swear that Id read an
Anandtech article later on recommending raid 0 for a desktop. And
several skeptics who used to make fun of the ATA 100-133 transition
as a marketing scam vociferously started defending RAID. And of course
zillions have touted it all over the newsgroups and at various
websites.

I thought I was out of date and that maybe the newer hard disks and
raid technoloigy had made it worthwhile. Hmmmmmmm, subjectively as I
posted - it "feels" snappier. This must be a really powerful mass
delusion or maybe Im reacting to very tiny differences.

Even now as I said - before I did it , a website tested it for gaming
and there was no gain in framerates etc but the one thing even
skeptics claimed was that things seemed to load faster. In this test
they even looked at game loading in FAR CRY and found virtually no
advantage and think increased chance of hardware problems doesnt make
it worth it at all.

Now heres my question - Anyone else feel a subjective improvement in
performance? And what kind of apps would have any kind of real world
benefit on a desktop?



Heres the conclusion from Anandtechs article:




Final Words

If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you:
there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop
computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best
and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time
between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.

There are some exceptions, especially if you are running a particular
application that itself benefits considerably from a striped array,
and obviously, our comments do not apply to server-class IO of any
sort. But for the vast majority of desktop users and gamers alike,
save your money and stay away from RAID-0.

If you do insist on getting two drives, you are much better off
putting them into a RAID-1 array to have a live backup of your data.
The performance hit of RAID-1 is just as negligible as the performance
gains of RAID-0, but the improvement in reliability is
worthwhile...unless you're extremely unlucky and both of your drives
die at the exact same time.

When Intel introduced ICH5, and now with ICH6, they effectively
brought RAID to the mainstream, pushing many users finally to bite the
bullet and buy two hard drives for "added performance". While we
applaud Intel for bringing the technology to the mainstream, we'd
caution users out there to think twice before buying two expensive
Raptors or any other drive for performance reasons. Your system will
most likely run just as fast with only one drive, but if you have the
spare cash, a bit more reliability and peace of mind may be worth
setting up a RAID-1 array.

Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but
they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world
desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth.


  #2  
Old July 4th 04, 12:51 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 11:25:58 GMT, "
wrote:

Well no practical benefits on DESKTOP PCs not servers obviously . The
article points out artificial benchmarks come out much better but not
real world use.






Heres some posts at websites from RAID users :


---------------------------------------------------------
The 10k drives in RAID0 give you amazing performance. If you dislike
loading screens in your games, a RAID0 with two of these drives IS a
good solution.

Personally, I run a RAID0 with two 36GB Raptors at home, and I love
it. Game load times are fairly nonexistant. I've tried going back to a
single drive and had to switch back - I just didn't have the patience
for it any longer

--------------------------------------

Overclockers Cafe

Conclusion

The practical value of RAID 1 stands on its own merit. RAID 0
obviously gives us faster access times that did seem to make a
difference in load times for programs which is beneficial for the
multitasking business environment. As far as gaming is concerned,
there is no real statistically significant improvement. Actually, the
results are a dead heat. You don't lose anything by running RAID 0.
Two 80 gb hard drives equal 160 gigs here where in RAID 1 they equal
80 gb of storage. So there you have it; if you want faster speed
where every little bit helps, run RAID 0. While it won't really help
you get more frames per second it will speed along other apps making
life more pleasant between games.


-----------------------------------------------------

SATA and Raid 0
My two penn'orth, then:

1. Correct. My IDE Raid 0 array is significantly and noticably faster
than my old single drive setup, especially when installing programs
and loading games levels (to use two data-transfer intensive
operations as examples). I would imagine that the difference with a
SATA Raid 0 array would be comparably significant.


--------------------------------------------------
  #3  
Old July 5th 04, 04:34 AM
Michael Culley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

" wrote in message ...
Well no practical benefits on DESKTOP PCs not servers obviously . The
article points out artificial benchmarks come out much better but not
real world use.


I've often wondered if 2 smaller drives raided would be similar in performance to a single larger drive. Say you've got a raid of 2
x 120 gig drives and compared that to a single 240gig drive. The actual bits of data on the 240gig drive will be smaller so the
performance should be much greater. OR the 240gig drive might be 2 platter compared to a single platter for the 120gig. If
everything else is equal then it's like having a raid inside the single drive because it is reading from 2 platters at once instead
of one. The raid is also reading from 2 platters at once, they are just seperated.

Personally, I thought raid was much faster but I had it a while ago on 40gig drives with an athlon 1.4.

--
Michael Culley


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Last/Fastest cB0 stepped 'gray zone' Celerons work natively on Abit ZM6/BM6? pgtr General 15 July 9th 04 07:29 PM
Abit IC7 MAX3 and SATA Rollin 4 Eva General 2 April 4th 04 05:33 PM
Im pissed at ABIT ! Continuing ABIT kx7-333R woes [email protected] General 2 January 3rd 04 08:54 AM
Interesting Article about cpu cooling Robotnik General 5 September 15th 03 02:26 PM
Motherboard problems - abit and Asus [email protected] General 1 August 31st 03 08:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.