RAID0 vs Single Drive

[polonyc2]

I never had a RAID array before and was considering getting one for my next build...I always assumed RAID0 offered the best performance vs a single drive but after doing a lot of reading on the subject it seems that it is not necessarily the case...although there are quite a few people who swear that RAID0 is definitely the way to go it seems as though more people feel the opposite

anyone have any opinions on this issue

I mostly use my system for high end gaming and apparently RAID0 does little or nothing to improve performance in this area...it seems like getting a RAID0 would only cause potential issues: failure rates on each drive goes up, a data backup nightmare, and increases in noise, thermals, and power consumption...so I guess my main question is, is a RAID0 setup worth it?

here are some of the better articles I read on the subject from some sites I trust...

StorageReview.com - Tiki : SingleDriveVsRaid0

AnandTech: Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Two Terabyte RAID Redux

[CrowdAds]

[zapionics<alt>]

I had a RAID 0 setup a while back and did a lot of gaming at that time.
The array definitely improved load times, it was very noticeable and I loved it.

I believe it also helped in-game on certain titles as well, however the only gains come when disk activity happens and typically in-game there is very little of that.

I would recommend RAID 0 PROVIDED that you have no important data on that array. There is an increased risk of data loss with a RAID0 because if only 1 drive fails then the whole array is lost (its complete opposite of RAID 1).

Finally, some people have complained of little performance improvement and I think some controllers are better than others and some disks are better than others so it is a bit of a crapshoot.

[elag99]

The raid 0 does speed things up if there is a lot of hard drive activity. However, if one of the hard drives crashes, your data is toast! You can protect your data by making backups to a CD or DVD.

I have not tried these but I think raid 0+1, or raid 5 provide more security. You might look into these as well as the raid 0.

[yamawho]

I had a RAID 0 setup on my P4C800e system and it ran great for years.
I took it apart recently and put in just one hdd and used the 2 80GB hdd's in Linux systems.

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by elag99

The raid 0 does speed things up if there is a lot of hard drive activity. However, if one of the hard drives crashes, your data is toast! You can protect your data by making backups to a CD or DVD.

I have not tried these but I think raid 0+1, or raid 5 provide more security. You might look into these as well as the raid 0.

the security factor does not really bother me as I don't plan on having any critical data on thie machine---well I do consider my games pretty critical but I won't be devastated if I lose them

plus I've never worried about hard drive failure...I've never had a hard drive fail on me...I know they potentially could fail but that is something I have never worried about...I would be more worried about HD failure if I had 4 drives set up in a RAID0 array but with just 2 drives I wouldn't lose any sleep over it

RAID0 + 1 requires 4 drives and also increases the complexity so I don't think I would want that...plus I think I would need to use a hardware controller to get the maximum benefit of RAID0 + 1

I was mainly concerned about whether or not RAID0 actually provides any real performance improvements...looks like everyone here seems to think it does

[chuckbam]

I have been using RAID 0 for a long time now. There are some new very fast drives out lately. I think a pair would give you great performance. So yo have 2x the probability that a drive will fail vs 1x. Just get a quality drive and backup important data. I would do that with a single drive or a RAID 0. HDs are much more dependable now. I have Benchmarked file moves etc. I always have considerable better performance with a RAID 0 vs my single drives. my 2 cents

[Dan-Baer]

RAID 0 is much faster for loading, for Photoshop, for transitions in Games. You do have a 2X chance of loosing your data however that is still a very small percentage. Just back up your critical data on a regular basis and enjoy the speed.

[polonyc2]

what's the best stripe size to use for a (mostly) gaming non server rig?

a lot of people recommended 128k but I was told from someone that uses a RAID0 array that 64k works best...any opinions?

[Dan-Baer]

I use 64K and a good overall comprimise.

[polonyc2]

after doing tons of reading on the subject I've decided to go with a fast single drive instead of RAID0...for those that swear increased speed/production etc, more power to you but from what I've read I think for most desktop users (even high end power users/gamers) RAID0 is more hype and placebo then actual reality

I'm a facts and figures/hard numbers kind of guy who likes to see actual performance numbers listed and comparisons given and not just generalizations...here is a nice thread from another forum for those seriously considering RAID0 an an option...

"Most desktop applications and games place performance emphasis on the buffer startegy and seek performance of the disk(s). Increasing raw sustained transfer rate shows little gains for desktop users and gamers, as most files that they access are typically very small anyway. Disk striping using RAID-0 increases linear transfer performance, not buffer and seek performance. As a result, disk striping using RAID-0 shows little to no performance gain in most desktop applications and games, although there are exceptions. For desktop users and gamers with high performance as a goal, it is better to buy a faster, bigger, and more expensive single disk than it is to run two slower/smaller drives in RAID-0. Even running the latest, greatest. and biggest drives in RAID-0 is unlikely to boost performance more than 10%, and performance may drop in some access patterns, particularly games."

"RAID-0 is very much overrated in the enthusiast community, and that an erroneous belief persists among many gamers that running RAID-0 will get them into the BF2 game faster, etc."

"RAID 0 excels in synthetic benchmarks, or writing large files to disk however in real world benchmarks when reading a lot of smaller files(which is what you do most of the time) it is no faster than a single drive. Often times slower"

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ed+ineffective

AC&NC | RAID.edu - RAID Levels - RAID Level 0 - RAID 0

StorageReview.com - Tiki : SingleDriveVsRaid0 (see chart in link)

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

after doing tons of reading on the subject I've decided to go with a fast single drive instead of RAID0...for those that swear increased speed/production etc, more power to you but from what I've read I think for most desktop users (even high end power users/gamers) RAID0 is more hype and placebo then actual reality...

Heh, I remember reading articles like this when I was deciding if I wanted to go RAID 0 or not, then I did it and was duly impressed.
As I said earlier;

Finally, some people have complained of little performance improvement and I think some controllers are better than others and some disks are better than others so it is a bit of a crapshoot.

[Dan-Baer]

The choice is yours. If money is the key issue then go single drive, for that matter get an AMD chip. If performance is your thing then go RAID. The difference is not amazing but it is there and performance improvement is a series of modest upgrades.
I have Raptors in RAID 0 and I have a WD 750 AAKS, a very fast single drive. I can really tell the difference, not huge but noticable, especially in scene transitions in games and with PhotoShop. For web surfing, using Word or listning to MP3's ther is no difference but if that is what you are doing really save money and get a Dell.

[chuckbam]

I agree, it is not better to go with to low density cheap drives and create a RAID 0. But today, some of the better drives at 7200 RPM are as fast or faster than the Raptor. Today, you can buy a a 500GB drive like a Barracuda 7200.11 with a 32MB Cache at Newegg for around $120.00 with free shipping.

I have about 465Gbs of data that I view as important. I no longer am building a box of photos and I scan documents. In fact, I am trying to go paperless. I have some of my favorite old movies and home movies. I am moving this info as a backup on a regular basis. I don't play games, but I want smooth multimedia. When I hear the hard drives moving at a fantastic MB/s. I know that my performance is with properly setup RAIDs.

I have many tests. Some as simple as a one file move benchmark. I know PCMARK05 is not the last word on a hard drive benchmark. But, it does several different tests. I agree, when I open a Doc file of normal size I have no need for a RAID 0. But, when I scroll down 400 MBs of graphic thumbnails. I think it makes a difference.

What average users did yesterday, it is not the same as what they do today or tomorrow.

I only have older drives rated at average performance.

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by chuckbam

Today, you can buy a a 500GB drive like a Barracuda 7200.11 with a 32MB Cache at Newegg for around $120.00 with free shipping

I think that 32MB cache drives really increase performance to the point where RAID0 is not even necessary...I wonder if there is any significant speed increases going to a RAID 0setup that is using 32mb cache drives

[chuckbam]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

I think that 32MB cache drives really increase performance to the point where RAID0 is not even necessary...I wonder if there is any significant speed increases going to a RAID 0setup that is using 32mb cache drives

If you move large amounts of Data I think it would. 32Mbs is only 32MBs. So if you open and close the same doc file or when surfing the net, all is good. That is not what a RAID 0 is for. It is for a data move. Not Small File I/O anymore.