RAID 0 is usually a foolish choice for desktops

On 07 Jul 2004 17:40:58 GMT, (Courseyauto) wrote:


Then you DON'T DISAGREE with me because ALL we're talking about here
is desktops, NOT workstations or servers. The urban myth is that RAID
0 is useful on desktops. I think we all agree that it has a place on
workstations and servers.




I built a PC for my nephew who does video editing and rendering for his
personal use,would you classify his System a desktop or a workstation. Raid O
has helped lower his rendering times considerably.

That's just the point! Based on what ?!? What TESTS did he do to
show that?? If you built the machine for him then you must be
comparing its performance to his former machine. Are you going to try
to tell me that the ONLY difference between the two computers is the
RAID 0?? IF there is an improvement in rendering, then I'll bet my
next paycheck that there was very significant change in the CPU, as
well.

Video rendering is done by the CPU, not by the hard drive. The
constraint point in video rendering is the CPU, not the hard drive.

By the way, if his rendering is for personal use, I'd call that a
desktop rather than a workstation, but that's just my opinion.
Ron

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:18:10 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:

Actually Anand has shown himself not to be completely competent in this
arena and therefore his conclusions are suspect.

That totally unsubstantiated accusation is inadmissible. If you want
to take issue with his organization's findings, then have the
integrity to point out what was wrong with their methodology.

"Milleron" wrote in message
.. .

Let's repeat Mr. Shimpi's quote one more time: "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

"Milleron" wrote in message
...

Video rendering is done by the CPU, not by the hard drive. The
constraint point in video rendering is the CPU, not the hard drive.

That assertion is not necessarily true.

By the way, if his rendering is for personal use, I'd call that a
desktop rather than a workstation,

That assertion is simply WACKO!

"Milleron" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:18:10 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:

Actually Anand has shown himself not to be completely competent in this
arena and therefore his conclusions are suspect.

That totally unsubstantiated accusation is inadmissible. If you want
to take issue with his organization's findings, then have the
integrity to point out what was wrong with their methodology.

Anand doesn't know the definition of a stripe. Second Anand made some wild
and unsubstantiated and false claim at the beginning of his article that the
largest stripe size is known to be fastest. That's just plain WRONG!

"Milleron" wrote in message
.. .

Let's repeat Mr. Shimpi's quote one more time: "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

I built a PC for my nephew who does video editing and rendering for his
personal use,would you classify his System a desktop or a workstation. Raid O
has helped lower his rendering times considerably.

That's just the point! Based on what ?!? What TESTS did he do to
show that?? If you built the machine for him then you must be
comparing its performance to his former machine. Are you going to try
to tell me that the ONLY difference between the two computers is the
RAID 0?? IF there is an improvement in rendering, then I'll bet my
next paycheck that there was very significant change in the CPU, as
well.


Based on raid O vs NON raid O,there was no previous computer. It takes less
time to do a render on raid O than it does non
raid...............................

In article ,
says...
Based on raid O vs NON raid O,there was no previous computer. It takes less
time to do a render on raid O than it does non
raid...............................

The exact same performance gain would be true if rendering an image from
source drive #1 and storing the final rendering on destination drive #2


--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)



I have no idea what you are talking about..........................

Posting below the "--" lines means that many proper news readers will
not include your response - the "--" signify that the text below that
are should not be included in the response.

Now, what I was saying is that since most rendering can't fully fit in
memory, and since a single drive system must read from one track, move
the r/w head, and then write, you loose performance, even fragmentation
hurts your rendering being converted and written to the drive.

If you have two hard drives, one with the OS and source to be rendered,
and one for storing the rendering as it's being converted, you will see
a large increase in performance.

-

Thats why they put extra memory slots on the mother board........