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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
An interesing comment, the author notes that:
"The price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID and a single drive of the same capacity" I detect a presumption that RAID is more expensive. In fact, it's often LESS expensive. I've bought Western Digital 1200JB's (7200rpm, 8 meg cache) for as low as $59. You cannot buy a 240 gig drive for $118. Lorenzo Sandini wrote: For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to install RAID 0 on desktops. You're overlooking the key element here Ron. The GEEK factor ) Lorenzo "Milleron" wrote in message ... If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101 As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the chance of a hard-drive failure. ... RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "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." Ron |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Where is Norton Performance Test?? Could not locate it in my Systemworks
MikeSp -------------------------------------------- wrote in message news Just ran Norton Performance Test on my Asus P4PE system which has RAID-0: Disk: C: (Seagate 80GB 7200rpm) Disk Size: 80.0 GBytes Free space: 61.5 GBytes Cluster Size: 4 KBytes File System: NTFS 2xIntel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.06GHz Ave. read speed: 21.3 MB/Sec. Ave. write speed: 15.8 MB/Sec. Disk: F: RAID-0 (2 x SATA western digital 60GB 7200rpm) Disk Size: 120.0 GBytes Free space: 119.4 GBytes Cluster Size: 4 KBytes File System: NTFS 2xIntel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.06GHz Ave. speed: 66.6 MB/Sec. Ave. speed: 62.0 MB/Sec. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not
worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives. Just do backups and u are fine. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"MikeSp" wrote in message ...
Where is Norton Performance Test?? Could not locate it in my Systemworks MikeSp -------------------------------------------- wrote in message news Just ran Norton Performance Test on my Asus P4PE system which has RAID-0: Disk: C: (Seagate 80GB 7200rpm) Disk Size: 80.0 GBytes Free space: 61.5 GBytes Cluster Size: 4 KBytes File System: NTFS 2xIntel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.06GHz Ave. read speed: 21.3 MB/Sec. Ave. write speed: 15.8 MB/Sec. Disk: F: RAID-0 (2 x SATA western digital 60GB 7200rpm) Disk Size: 120.0 GBytes Free space: 119.4 GBytes Cluster Size: 4 KBytes File System: NTFS 2xIntel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.06GHz Ave. speed: 66.6 MB/Sec. Ave. speed: 62.0 MB/Sec. Did you install Norton Utilities with Systemworks? It should be under Extra Features. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Although it does not absolutely ensure that the drives will actually be more
dependable, but the WD SATA Raptors do have a 1.2 million hour MTBF which is significantly better than any PATA drives--thus RAID is less likely to fail when using these enterprise drives than non-RAID that uses regular PATA drives. This is in regard to the question about one of the drives failing when using a RAID configuration. MikeSp --------------------------------------------- "_P_e_ar_lALegend" wrote in message news RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives. Just do backups and u are fine. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Il Sun, 04 Jul 2004 12:32:54 +0000, Leythos ha scritto:
In article , says... Where is Norton Performance Test?? Could not locate it in my Systemworks It doesn't really matter - the tests only indicate what you can expect under the test conditions. While they are great for determining burst performance, they don't really indicate normal use by users during the period of a workday. It's the same with anand and hardware sites testing. They really means nothing in real life computing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I think Anand is not true.
He used tests just for desktop performance. Minimal disk load. Much more for graphics, processor and chipset :-(. I dont agree, that RAID 0 for desktop is nonsense. A lot of people need great disk subsystem performance. AV editing and many others. Anand didnt do tests with copy from 1 partition to the second, no DVD burning and normal office work etc or Database creation and indexing. I think, that reliability and SMART is now much bigger than before 2-3yrs and price is good for two smaller disks than one bigger. Pleva |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
There is one major flaw in his article. He claims that the biggest possible
stripe size provides the best performance. In fact usually a stripe size of 16K or 32k for two drives is usually optimal. Also Anand doesn't seem to understand the definition of what a stripe is. A stripe is the set of data than spans the entire RAID 0 array until it starts back on the first drive again. A stripe unit is the amount/unit of data on a single drive in a RAID 0 set until the linear stream starts on the next drive. "Milleron" wrote in message ... If more proof of this old contention is needed, there's a cutting-edge review by Anand Shimpi on AnandTech.com: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101 As always in these tests, the real-world improvement achieved with RAID 0 varies between 0 and 4%, which is simply imperceptible. The price that's paid is two-fold: (1) the difference between the RAID and a single drive of the same capacity, and (2) the DOUBLING of the chance of a hard-drive failure. For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to install RAID 0 on desktops. RAID 1 is another matter entirely, but, as Anand says, "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." Ron |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Leythos" wrote in message ... In article , says... RAID-1 offers fast reads, but slower writes, but RAID-0 is just not worth the loss of all data on BOTH drives. Just do backups and u are fine. Most people don't even purchase something for backup, most don't even know what a tape drive is, most people don't even know what Windows Update is, most people don't even run the update for the AV program. If you build an 120+GB RAID-0 Array, do you know that it would cost more than the price of a new computer to back it up to tape? Tape, god no. Use a SATA drive in a removeable tray ~$220 for 250GB. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array | Yeechang Lee | Homebuilt PC's | 31 | February 22nd 05 06:40 PM |
RAID 0 problems | no spam | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | April 30th 04 06:18 PM |
What are the advantages of RAID setup? | Rich | General | 5 | February 23rd 04 08:34 PM |
DAW & Windows XP RAID Tips, ProTools error -9086 | Giganews | Asus Motherboards | 0 | October 24th 03 06:45 AM |
help. ga-7vrxp raid trouble, compatability and warning | todd elliott | General | 0 | July 17th 03 06:50 PM |