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
|
|||
|
|||
RAID 0
Is using two drives setup as a RAID 0 array, a wise move for Internet
browsing/E-mail/Photo editing/Video editing/Database work/Software development, etc.? Even with a good backup strategy? Or would the small-drive-big-drive be a better and safer combination? Or is it simply a personal choice of sacrificing reliability for speed? @drian. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:50:59 GMT, "@drian" wrote:
Is using two drives setup as a RAID 0 array, a wise move for Internet browsing/E-mail/Photo editing/Video editing/Database work/Software development, etc.? Even with a good backup strategy? Or would the small-drive-big-drive be a better and safer combination? Or is it simply a personal choice of sacrificing reliability for speed? @drian. Internet browsing makes little difference, but if you really want that faster move the temporary files to a ramdrive. Email, again no significant difference but I think a ramdrive might be a very very bad idea for message storage. Photo editing, depends on the system. For HUGE photos, on a machine that doesn't have enough memory, a RAID0 would help not only for the swap/paging file, but for the temporary files. Far better to just get enough memory though, and if speed is more important than risk (or if you are disciplined and save work regularly, again a ramdrive is better for temporary files. Video Editing- depends on what you're doing... If it's high-res, uncompressed video, it could help to use RAID0, but if you only have two drives and are doing multi-pass editing, have both an uncompressed (or low-compression) source and destination, it's faster to use two single drives, one for source and other for destination. With one uncompressed and one compressed, it can vary, especially considering the amount of processing to be done. If you capture (or transfer via firewire) a compressed format, edit and save in compressed format, it makes little difference, RAID has insignificant gain unless the processing is minimal, like cutting out or adding segments, adding audio tracks, etc. For databases it depends on how large... most people don't have databases anywhere near large enough to benefit, and most corporations aren't going to be storing a large database on a RAID 0. Software development- You tell us, are you doing anything with HUGE files? If not, no significant benefit. My take on RAID 0 is that it should never be used if you don't also have enough additional storage to easily move the data around if/when necessary. The more work you do with uncompressed video, the more beneficial it'll be, but beyond that it's not worthwhile. Also consider that it depends on bus used to implement the array. If it's a RAID card sitting on the PCI bus, other devices will be in contention for bandwidth, and there'll be higher latency. AFAIK, SATA RAID integrated into a southbridge is the only way to get really good all-around performance from RAID 0 with smaller files. Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Conor Turton wrote in message m...
In article , says... Is using two drives setup as a RAID 0 array, a wise move for Internet browsing/E-mail/Photo editing/Video editing/Database work/Software development, etc.? Even with a good backup strategy? Or would the small-drive-big-drive be a better and safer combination? Or is it simply a personal choice of sacrificing reliability for speed? You pay twice as much for something that's half as reliable...strange. I would suggest that you try an Arco DupliDisk (you can connect up to 4 hard drives). It is OS independent and does not require any device drivers and is a true Hardware RAID solution. I believe you can find it at www.duplidisk.com. Eugene |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
That is an excellent product, but I believe it is RAID 1 and not
RAID 0 as the OP requested. "Eugene P." wrote: I would suggest that you try an Arco DupliDisk (you can connect up to 4 hard drives). It is OS independent and does not require any device drivers and is a true Hardware RAID solution. I believe you can find it at www.duplidisk.com. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"kony" wrote in message
Photo editing, depends on the system. For HUGE photos, on a machine that doesn't have enough memory, a RAID0 would help not only for the swap/paging file, but for the temporary files. Far better to just get enough memory though, and if speed is more important than risk (or if you are disciplined and save work regularly, again a ramdrive is better for temporary files. The machine I'm planning on using this with has 2GB of ECC RAM. Video Editing- depends on what you're doing... If it's high-res, uncompressed video, it could help to use RAID0, but if you only have two drives and are doing multi-pass editing, have both an uncompressed (or low-compression) source and destination, it's faster to use two single drives, one for source and other for destination. With one uncompressed and one compressed, it can vary, especially considering the amount of processing to be done. If you capture (or transfer via firewire) a compressed format, edit and save in compressed format, it makes little difference, RAID has insignificant gain unless the processing is minimal, like cutting out or adding segments, adding audio tracks, etc. Yes, high-res uncompressed video. For databases it depends on how large... most people don't have databases anywhere near large enough to benefit, and most corporations aren't going to be storing a large database on a RAID 0. How large? I'd say 500MB to 1.5GB. Software development- You tell us, are you doing anything with HUGE files? If not, no significant benefit. The only large files may be the Source Management library, for check-in and check-outs. Also consider that it depends on bus used to implement the array. If it's a RAID card sitting on the PCI bus, other devices will be in contention for bandwidth, and there'll be higher latency. AFAIK, SATA RAID integrated into a southbridge is the only way to get really good all-around performance from RAID 0 with smaller files. The machine I am considering setting up this in, has SATA RAID 0 and SATA RAID 1 built into the Southbridge. One other question, why don't Western Digital make a SATA 80GB drive? I can't find one anywhere. They don't even do a 160GB version either. @drian. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The machine I am considering setting up this in, has SATA RAID 0 and SATA RAID 1 built into the Southbridge. One other question, why don't Western Digital make a SATA 80GB drive? I can't find one anywhere. They don't even do a 160GB version either. @drian. According to Western Digitals site, they make SATA up to 250gb, but only at 7200 rpm. There 10k Raptors are widely available at 36gb, and they have announced the 72gb Raptor, but I don't think they are really shipping it even though some suppliers say they can get them. If you want raw speed, the 36gb Raptor is fast, keeping up with average 10k SCSI drives with no problems. Have built one server with Raptors, where speed at a reasonable price was the goal, and it is fast. Hold out for the 72gb Raptors if you can. JT |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:22:45 GMT, "@drian" wrote:
snip, snip The machine I'm planning on using this with has 2GB of ECC RAM. Yes, high-res uncompressed video. How large? I'd say 500MB to 1.5GB. The machine I am considering setting up this in, has SATA RAID 0 and SATA RAID 1 built into the Southbridge. One other question, why don't Western Digital make a SATA 80GB drive? I can't find one anywhere. They don't even do a 160GB version either. It does sound like you'd benefit from RAID 0, but as always I'd recommend it only in addition to enough OTHER storage space to be able to move data around, especially if this is to be your only motherboard (so far) that has SATA support, you might want a PATA drive for the backup if you plan on keeping around another system with PATA support. I'd expect WD to eventually make more models, sizes in SATA, but they they're just converting one production line or factory at a time, as they see the demand changing. Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"kony" wrote in message
It does sound like you'd benefit from RAID 0, but as always I'd recommend it only in addition to enough OTHER storage space to be able to move data around, especially if this is to be your only motherboard (so far) that has SATA support, you might want a PATA drive for the backup if you plan on keeping around another system with PATA support. I plan on eventually (near future) buying a Western Digital 250GB external firewire drive. This would completely store the contents of the single RAID 0 array (both WD 120GB drives setup in RAID 0). At 240GBs (actually, 222, 111GB x 2), it would all fit on the 250GB external. I'm thinking of writing a batch file that is scheduled for example, every day at 3pm, which would "dump" all the files in all partitions to directories on the external drive. It could be a batch file or scheduling features in a backup application like Dantz Retrospective or Stomp Backup MyPC. I'd expect WD to eventually make more models, sizes in SATA, but they they're just converting one production line or factory at a time, as they see the demand changing. I see. OK. Thanks. @drian. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"JT" datacare@www wrote in message
According to Western Digitals site, they make SATA up to 250gb, but only at 7200 rpm. There 10k Raptors are widely available at 36gb, and they have announced the 72gb Raptor, but I don't think they are really shipping it even though some suppliers say they can get them. If you want raw speed, the 36gb Raptor is fast, keeping up with average 10k SCSI drives with no problems. Have built one server with Raptors, where speed at a reasonable price was the goal, and it is fast. Hold out for the 72gb Raptors if you can. I've heard of this 72GB Raptor drive, but never seen it. That would be ideal actually, if it came out. I'll need to have a look to see if it's available for purchase. It would be a nice option. One of those as a primary drive, and a WD 120GB as a scratch/storage drive. Thanks. @drian. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAID still malfunctioning | Cyde Weys | General | 0 | November 9th 04 08:37 PM |
How to setup (copy) the Data to Raid 1 Harddisk | hon123456 | General | 1 | October 29th 04 09:41 AM |
Desperately need help installing OS with RAID on an Intel mobo | Nate | General | 10 | January 1st 04 08:17 PM |
Incompatible RAID controller? | @drian | General | 1 | November 9th 03 08:38 PM |
help. ga-7vrxp raid trouble, compatability and warning | todd elliott | General | 0 | July 17th 03 06:50 PM |