# RAID worth it ?



## wolf2009 (Oct 20, 2008)

My second WD 640AAKS will be arriving this week. 

Was thinking I keep on hearing this word RAID and RAID all over the forums. Was thinking would I benefit from it ? Would probably be going for RAID 0, if thats the speed one

*What i know*


> 1. Games probably won't benefit.
> 
> 2. The imp data is backed up on a external drive be me, just in case.
> 
> ...



*My questions*



> 1. How do I set it up after plugging in the drives ?
> 
> 2. I have to format my both hard drives and install Vista again ?
> 
> 3. What else do i need to know ?




SO will i see some gains in general speed of my PC ? 

What i wanted to do is record video from games, at full res with FRAPS. With one HDD, the video capture slows down. I bought the other HDD to record the video on it, while running the game from first drive. So I am guessing, this way the video capture at full res will not slow down the game. 

Will RAID offer me the same benefit ?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

1. that depends on your raid controller. it could be in your main systems BIOS.

2. yes. all data is lost going to RAID.

3. RAID only helps if you're doing drive intensive tasks. Bottlenecks are also a concern - Example, RAID is worthless for leeching over a network unless the destination system can keep up (aka, raid it as well)

3.a RAID or not, it will still lag if you're doing multiple things at once. such as 2-3 file transfers at the same time.

IMO, raid is wortless unless its for a backup situation - however thats just my opinion, for my circumstances.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Oct 20, 2008)

I used to raid 2x80gb hdd's back on my 680i. I could move 10GB of data from my C: to any other hdd on my computer in ~3 min. That was using the onboard RAID controller. 

I had my OS in a RAID 0. The only time games would benefit is if you had a seperate hard drive that was dedicated to nothing but games. Slap another hdd in there and the load times would increase.


----------



## BrooksyX (Oct 20, 2008)

I am currently running a raid 0 setup. I really haven't noticed a signicant speed boost overall but you notice it in a few programs. 

What I have really noticed in raid 0 though is that Vista seems to be a lot more responsive and I never have to wait for programs or files to open where before I had raid sometimes windows would hang for a few moments when opening something.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 20, 2008)

My comp not in RAID would score a 5.2 oh the Hard Drive performance assessment in Vista. Then I bought some crappy $30 Hard Drive along with the one I had, put them in RAID 0 and the score jumped to 5.9. Comp's been faster since. Bottom line is I love my RAID!


----------



## w2richwood (Oct 20, 2008)

been using raido for the last 4 year's or so with two raptor's its faster on some thing's i like it your WD 640AAKS i've heard a great in raido try it you'll like it
Rich


----------



## CStylen (Oct 20, 2008)

Configure sata as RAID in your bios.
Enter RAID utility with Ctrl-i when prompted and create the array.  You will lose all data on disks.
Use default stripe size.

I am running RAID 0 with two 300gb velociraptors and before that 2 150gb raptors.  Very pleased with the results.  

RAID 0 will give you higher sustained transfer rates, and enabling writeback cache in the Matrix Storage Manager will greatly improve those results.  Some games will yeild faster loading times with a RAID 0 array.

From personal experience with those 640GB drives, you might want to test your new drive for a week or two before creating the array to make sure it's working properly.


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> 3.a RAID or not, it will still lag if you're doing multiple things at once. such as 2-3 file transfers at the same time.



Depends on your controller really. A good hardware controller with a decent amount of cache will solve this simple issue.

For onboard raid though, totally correct.


----------



## MKmods (Oct 20, 2008)

I have been running Raid0 for quite a few years. I like to raid a smaller pair of hdds (like 80s) and use a large one (like ur 640) to keep stuff on.
To me its silly to raid big hdds as if you fill them up and there is a prob...1TB of junk will follow.

I remember back in the day (when I first joined here) I had 4 Hitachi 80s in Raid0 and they wailed on a pair of Raptors.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> 1. that depends on your raid controller. it could be in your main systems BIOS.
> 
> 2. yes. all data is lost going to RAID.
> 
> ...


It may lag, but it will lag a hell of a lot less with a RAID0 setup. RAID0 is better at handling multiple simultaneous I/O ops than a single drive, even with on-board solutions.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

Wile E said:


> It may lag, but it will lag a hell of a lot less with a RAID0 setup. RAID0 is better at handling multiple simultaneous I/O ops than a single drive, even with on-board solutions.



true that it may lag a bit LESS, i was just saying it because i've had some people go RAID under the belief it will fix that issue when it doesnt.

My post was purely for information, in case he had any misconceptions - and i thank you guys for fleshing it out a bit more.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

thebeephaha said:


> Depends on your controller really. A good hardware controller with a decent amount of cache will solve this simple issue.
> 
> For onboard raid though, totally correct.



That's why I love SCSI, can throw so much more at it. Apart from that, NCQ and the likes are the things that do magic.
My controllers cache is PC133 though, so it's disabled as it actually slows me down


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 20, 2008)

thebeephaha said:


> Depends on your controller really. A good hardware controller with a decent amount of cache will solve this simple issue.
> 
> For onboard raid though, totally correct.



if you point to hardware raid controller that will be very expensive


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 20, 2008)

MKmods said:


> I have been running Raid0 for quite a few years. I like to raid a smaller pair of hdds (like 80s) and use a large one (like ur 640) to keep stuff on.
> To me its silly to raid big hdds as if you fill them up and there is a prob...1TB of junk will follow.
> 
> I remember back in the day (when I first joined here) I had 4 Hitachi 80s in Raid0 and they wailed on a pair of Raptors.




im 100% agree with mkmode , im not built raid yet but that what i discover and what i need


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 20, 2008)

nobody answered this 




> What i wanted to do is record video from games, at full res with FRAPS. With one HDD, the video capture slows down. I bought the other HDD to record the video on it, while running the game from first drive. So I am guessing, this way the video capture at full res will not slow down the game.
> 
> Will RAID offer me the same benefit ?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

Hardly Wolf, the games aren't loading data from the drive all the time, so it's not HD bottlenecked. Faster videocard/CPU help more.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 20, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Hardly Wolf, the games aren't loading data from the drive all the time, so it's not HD bottlenecked. Faster videocard/CPU help more.



depends on the game(like gta)


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> depends on the game(like gta)



More megabytings?


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 20, 2008)

If a game take GTA is loading files all the time, slow access rate can cause it to lag and frame out.

Install a drive with 12 access rate with GTA and just watch how it lags out all over the place. For the most par 98% or more of the time it does do the loading up front.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 20, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> If a game take GTA is loading files all the time, slow access rate can cause it to lag and frame out.
> 
> Install a drive with 12 access rate with GTA and just watch how it lags out all over the place. For the most par 98% or more of the time it does do the loading up front.



Which GTA are we on about here as GTA SA loads instantly for me.. Like i can have the game running in less than 2-3 seconds.

Raid is worth it up to 2 drives.  From what i have noticed using HD Tune Pro 120MBs is about the max i have seen.  Even with my average is around 230MB's.

Raid 0 i will not use due to the chance of lost data.  How ever Raid 5 with 3 HDDs gives you that extra speed plus a better chance of not losing your data.

worsted case's i have had with raid is with poor SATA cables and raid failure due to me numbering my HDD's wrong when i was changing stuff around and would not boot at all.  All though that is solved with a old HDD with OS on it and repair it using  Intel Matrix Storage Manager.

In the end i do see a nice boost and i'm sure i be happy not to lose any data if one of my HDDs go down.

Make sure you have a UPS as power cuts can be a pain in the ass..


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 20, 2008)

Vice city did it the worse.


----------



## KBD (Oct 20, 2008)

Your read/write speeds will increase dramatically with RAID 0. However, your Random Access Times may also increase. This happened to me when i set up a RAID 0 array for someone on an ICH9R onboard controller. 2 320GB Seagate Barracudas 7200.11 had worse Random Access Times than the single 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 in my system, (16.6ms for RAID 0 vs 13.5ms for single HDD) according to HD Tune & HD Tach. I dont know if these results are off, i've set HD Tune to run the most accurate, longest test,  or it may have something to do with a difference betwenn 7200.10 and .11 drives but i was somewhat dissapointed because these drives are used for the OS and lower Random Access Times wouldve been better. I dont know if it will happen to u but i just thought i'd let u know.

If you can, pick up a good controller card, they can be bought on ebay for a lot less then in a store. I'm thinking of getting one myself for my future 2 74GB veloci RAID 0 array.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 20, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Hardly Wolf, the games aren't loading data from the drive all the time, so it's not HD bottlenecked. Faster videocard/CPU help more.



no i thing you didn't get it.

With a quad core and a HD4870, I still can't capture video with FRAPS at full resolution like 1280x1024 smoothly. The game starts lagging.

IF I record to second drive and play the game from first drive, will i be able to capture smoothly ?


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 20, 2008)

Have you tried to make the program pick the Processor Affinity? What core the program is working from, and yea try recording to a different drive.


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 20, 2008)

hayder.master said:


> if you point to hardware raid controller that will be very expensive



My Dell Perc 5/i and some extra cache plus a backup battery was under $200, and its a hardware raid 8 port SAS/SATA controller.

Worth it?

YES.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> 1. that depends on your raid controller. it could be in your main systems BIOS.
> 
> 2. yes. all data is lost going to RAID.
> 
> ...




This is pretty much the overall case.

I find that most people who go into RAID situations, do so with high RPM drives, and assume that the results they get are based off the RAID, when really it's based off the harddisks.

With how large data is getting in programs these days, a faster harddisk is more and more showing noticeable performance gains. 


The comment KBD makes about latency and random access time increasing is also probable; and when it comes to IN program performance, those are the variables you need to consider. Burst speed is pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## KBD (Oct 20, 2008)

thebeephaha said:


> My Dell Perc 5/i and some extra cache plus a backup battery was under $200, and its a hardware raid 8 port SAS/SATA controller.
> 
> Worth it?
> 
> YES.



good controller, i dont know if OP will need SAS, getting just a SATA controller will keep costs down i think.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2008)

RAID is no longer the best way to gain storage and or speed.


Back when 120Gb was big I did it, and my old compy had two 300's in it. But one new 750Gb Perp drive outperforms the two easily. Or but a 1.5Tb drive.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 20, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> no i thing you didn't get it.
> 
> With a quad core and a HD4870, I still can't capture video with FRAPS at full resolution like 1280x1024 smoothly. The game starts lagging.
> 
> IF I record to second drive and play the game from first drive, will i be able to capture smoothly ?



For things like that is why i liked using 2 raid 5 arrays.  If one array was doing some thing i could easily use the other array without it being effected by the other.

For example i could rar\unrar a file on the 1st raid array and play games and load them with out issue with the other.

So you MIGHT want to try it single drive out see if it works for you. as you could get the screen shots saved to the other HDD.



Steevo said:


> RAID is no longer the best way to gain storage and or speed.
> 
> 
> Back when 120Gb was big I did it, and my old compy had two 300's in it. But one new 750Gb Perp drive outperforms the two easily. Or but a 1.5Tb drive.




But would one 750GB drive be faster than 2 in raid.  You forgetting the other drive is older plus there be other factors to count for too...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Oct 20, 2008)

If you have fraps installed on say your C: drive and have it record to another hdd (say E: ) you wont experience the lag from recording. Doubt RAID-0 would make any difference if you recorded to the same drive that fraps is installed on.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2008)

I never had a problem with my two 300's recording full screen 1680X1050 onto the same drive, and one 1.5Tb drive would be better than two 750Gb drives in RAID 0.


Try extracting 9000 photos from a 3-4Gb archive, that is drive intense.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 21, 2008)

Steevo said:


> I never had a problem with my two 300's recording full screen 1680X1050 onto the same drive, and one 1.5Tb drive would be better than two 750Gb drives in RAID 0.
> 
> 
> Try extracting 9000 photos from a 3-4Gb archive, that is drive intense.



1.5TB vs 2x750GB is better in what manner? I can tell you right now, the 2x750's smoke the single 1.5TB in sequential read/write and multiple I/O access. Random access likely goes to the 1.5TB, and it's half as likely to fail (assuming the drives are all of equal quality, of course). 

For a 3-4GB extraction, so long as the files are larger than the stripe size (which is the case for photos), the RAID0 will decimate the single 1.5TB drive in terms of performance.



KBD said:


> Your read/write speeds will increase dramatically with RAID 0. However, your Random Access Times may also increase. This happened to me when i set up a RAID 0 array for someone on an ICH9R onboard controller. 2 320GB Seagate Barracudas 7200.11 had worse Random Access Times than the single 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 in my system, (16.6ms for RAID 0 vs 13.5ms for single HDD) according to HD Tune & HD Tach. I dont know if these results are off, i've set HD Tune to run the most accurate, longest test,  or it may have something to do with a difference betwenn 7200.10 and .11 drives but i was somewhat dissapointed because these drives are used for the OS and lower Random Access Times wouldve been better. I dont know if it will happen to u but i just thought i'd let u know.
> 
> If you can, pick up a good controller card, they can be bought on ebay for a lot less then in a store. I'm thinking of getting one myself for my future 2 74GB veloci RAID 0 array.



It has to be the 7200.11's. My 320GB 7200.10's get 12.9ms in RAID0


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 21, 2008)

All I can say is the numbers do not lie. RAID0 is the bomb. Just backup your data!


----------



## KBD (Oct 21, 2008)

Wile E said:


> It has to be the 7200.11's. My 320GB 7200.10's get 12.9ms in RAID0





yea, it must be the 7200.11 drives. i feel like an idiot now because everyone was saying that they are so good, though there are a couple of revisions of 7200.10 that do outperform the 7200.11, and i told this guy to get them. May be there is a firmware update or something for the 7200.11, i'll have to ask Seagate.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 21, 2008)

Wile E said:


> 1.5TB vs 2x750GB is better in what manner? I can tell you right now, the 2x750's smoke the single 1.5TB in sequential read/write and multiple I/O access. Random access likely goes to the 1.5TB, and it's half as likely to fail (assuming the drives are all of equal quality, of course).
> 
> For a 3-4GB extraction, so long as the files are larger than the stripe size (which is the case for photos), the RAID0 will decimate the single 1.5TB drive in terms of performance.



I won't lie, benchmarks always show RAID smoking a non-raid setup, but after using a 750Gb drive and my RAID 0 600Gb stripe I will buy a 1.5TB drive before trying to RAID more drives. Games load faster, extraction is faster, boot time is faster. There is something to be said about large contingous files like working with audio, but the feeling I have gotten from that is a larger drive will perform the same as my RAID array.


I tried HD Tune on my single 750 and the RAID array, both on a Nvidia Nforce controller, they both scored around 13ms seek time, the RAID peaked at 118MBps sustaind read, the 750 perp at 81MBps. The most noticeable thing about the 750 was the falloff, it was much less than the RAID array, the RAID array however had a flat rate untill almost 300GB.


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 22, 2008)

Steevo said:


> ...I tried HD Tune on my single 750 and the RAID array, both on a Nvidia Nforce controller...



Well there's your problem. 

I can say I noticed similar with my four Raptors before I got my Perc 5, it didn't scale right and the access time went up. Software raid < hardware raid.


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 22, 2008)

Steevo said:


> ...I tried HD Tune on my single 750 and the RAID array, both on a Nvidia Nforce controller...



Well there's your problem. 

I can say I noticed similar with my four Raptors before I got my Perc 5, it didn't scale right and the access time went up. Software raid (Nforce raid < Intel raid) < hardware raid.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 22, 2008)

So true.


----------



## theeldest (Oct 23, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> no i thing you didn't get it.
> 
> With a quad core and a HD4870, I still can't capture video with FRAPS at full resolution like 1280x1024 smoothly. The game starts lagging.
> 
> IF I record to second drive and play the game from first drive, will i be able to capture smoothly ?



I vote that, yes, it will be quicker to record to the second drive.

Here's Why:
I had a 400GB drive, and a 250GB drive (250GB is a decent bit slower than the 400GB). All programs and OS were on the 400GB drive (there was only about 150GB of data on it, not near full).

I switched to running my games from the 250GB drive (along with the page file) and keeping the OS on the 400GB. It gave me 5 - 10 fps in Oblivion.

Recording to a drive is harddrive intensive. I'd assume that you'd have problems loading any data from the same drive. I'd split them up instead of RAIDing them if your primary concern is FRAPS while gaming.

Otherwise, for game performance not frapping, I'd RAID them.



SHIT! This was my 100th Post!!!

Wooo Weee!!!


----------

