• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

RAID 5 for games?

RAID10 is wasteful only having 50% of the drive total capacity available. RAID5 is n-1 capacity. If we were talking 3 drive RAID5 versus 2 drive RAID0, the read performance would be about the same but write performance of RAID5 is much worse.

Basic overview of common levels: https://www.datarecovery.net/articles/raid-level-comparison.aspx

I would never recommend RAID0 with more than two drives. The risk of data loss keeps going up and up.


Here's my 11 year old RAID5:
View attachment 101594
Heh, I thought it felt painfully slow. Well, there's the proof. It needs upgrading but, meh, drives are still good. :roll:
Yea, I never said RAID10 would be cheap. :toast: Also, I had to retire my personal RAID 0 game drive array over the same thing.. It worked but was showing it's age.. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: hat
I still don't understand why people wanna cache HDDs. I wanna have control over what is on the ssd and what isn't. I don't want the system to manage it, eventually it'll waste space on what I don't want on the ssd and the stuff I do want there will get pushed out.
People worry about GB/$ too much. If I had to choose either a 500GB ssd or 5TB hdd for games, I'd take the ssd all day. It's not just the speed and quietness, it's also this

In terms of endurance, TechReport reveals that that the majority of consumer quality SSDs tends to be able to endure more than 700TB of reading & writing, with a few others surviving up to an exceptional 2.5 pentabytes. They also found that TLC type SSDs had generally less endurance than their MLC counterparts.



Compare that to Backblaze’s tests with their HDDs. Backblaze has kept up to 25,000 hard drives constantly online for the last four years. Every time a drive of theirs failed, they noted it down, and then slotted in a replacement. After four years, Backblaze has collected detailed data of the failure rates of Hard Disk Drives over the first four years of their life.


It seems that hard drives have three distinct failure “phases.” In the first phase, which lasts 1.5 years, hard drives have an annual failure rate of 5.1%. For the next 1.5 years, the annual failure rate drops to 1.4%. After three years, the failure rate explodes to 11.8% per year. In short, this means that around 92% of drives survive the first 18 months, and almost all of those (90%) then go on to reach three years.


Extrapolating from these figures, just under 80% of all hard drives will survive to their fourth anniversary. Backblaze doesn’t have figures beyond that, but its distinguished engineer, Brian Beach, speculates that the failure rate will probably stick to around 12% per year.

And you wanna tell me you're thinking about having three of those ?

I have 3TB+1TB HDDs myself, but they mostly just serve for data I write then delete or upload, and they're so cheap per GB that I don't care if they die in the middle of this sentence.
 
Raid 5 is outdated but 6 is what you need no speed degradation but higher costs, but i would use raid 10 for that more capacity, speed and redundancy.
 
Back
Top