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 usually a foolish choice for desktops
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Leythos" wrote in message ... In article , millerdot90 @SPAMlessosu.edu says... For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to install RAID 0 on desktops. I strongly agree with you as long as we further qualify it to mean home user desktops or systems that don't contain high-performance RAID controllers. In real-world testing of quality RAID systems, RAID-0 can have up to 20% performance increase, but there isn't a single motherboard with built-in RAID controller, and not one cheap (non-scsi) RAID controller that will let users see this performance. But, as I said above, with the qualification of quality, I completely agree with you and have maintained the same stance for years. -- -- (Remove 999 to reply to me) I would broadly agree. I have been using 2 x 74Gb Raptors in a RAID0 array for several weeks. There is a noticeable improvement in performance, especially video editing. I was aware of the potential drive failure aspect - but I am not too bothered about that, as my critical data is not the RAID drives, and I have backups of my OS and apps on other drives. As already said, probably not worth the money for your average desktop. -- Doug Ramage [watch spam trap] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual CPU
system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core opterons will bring a smile to everones faces. - Tim "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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I have a dual Pentium III system with 2 x 36Gb SCSI drives - pretty
quick in its day. -- Doug Ramage [watch spam trap] "Tim" wrote in message ... Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual CPU system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core opterons will bring a smile to everones faces. - Tim "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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Il Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:45:07 +0000, Milleron ha scritto:
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. It's pretty much three years I run Raid 0 now with various chipsets and configurations (3ware, promise, high point and now SI) without any failure problem. BTW, become I do care about my data, I do backups often. For now I never had to use my backups. For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to install RAID 0 on desktops. Becouse of improvements in performance? 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. Anand need to do some real life computer: tests are not enough. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 22:46:34 +1200, "Tim" wrote:
Agree 100%. It's a good article. SCSI is still smoother esp with a dual CPU system. Perhaps the NCQ drives will help iron things out, then dual core opterons will bring a smile to everones faces. What are NCQ drives? Glad you still like SCSI. If you look at the pricing for some of the high-perf 73 GB ATA drives, you're going to pay about what the same drives cost in SCSI-land. --W-- - Tim "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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Good points. The only thing I use RAID for is to kill bugs.
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:23:11 +0200, _P_e_ar_lALegend
wrote: Il Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:45:07 +0000, Milleron ha scritto: 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. It's pretty much three years I run Raid 0 now with various chipsets and configurations (3ware, promise, high point and now SI) without any failure problem. And every minute of every hour of every day that you operate this RAID, you STILL have TWICE the chance of a HD failure that you would have without it. Have you heard about the guy who jumped off the top of a fifty-story building? As he passed the third floor, someone in a window yelled "how you doing." The jumper yelled back "OK, so far." BTW, become I do care about my data, I do backups often. For now I never had to use my backups. Keep making those backups! For the life of me, I can't understand why so many users decide to install RAID 0 on desktops. Becouse of improvements in performance? Didn't you read the article??? There are NO significant improvements in performance. 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. Anand need to do some real life computer: tests are not enough. I disagree strongly on two counts: 1) Your so-called "real-life computer tests" are not tests at all. They're nothing more than SUBJECTIVE impressions of performance, strongly biased by the money and time you spent on the RAID, and they mean absolutely nothing in the face of true OBJECTIVE tests. 2) AnandTech's benchmarks DID include "real-world" content-creation benchmarks, and the results speak for themselves. There is NO PERCEPTIBLE improvement in real-world applications with RAID 0. Ron |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |