| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sillyputty
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
 |
|
Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Bob Fry
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
| Quote: | "sp" == sillyputty <karmictaragem@2die4.com> writes:
sp> For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or |
sp> two 500gb in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a
sp> larger drive is faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID
sp> configuration using two smaller (500g) be faster, particularly
sp> with gaming? Thanks again.
A RAID 0 configuration will enjoy faster read and write access than a
single drive, or most other RAID configs. Whether disk access times
are important for gamers I don't know. I've been running RAID 0 on 3
drives for 1.5 years with no problems at all.
For convenience and a less risk consider 3 drives: a smallish (~ 100
GB) drive for the boot OS and page file, and then everything else in
the 2-disk RAID. Makes booting and diagnosing OS problems a lot
easier.
--
Today it is fashionable to talk about the poor. Unfortunately, it is
not fashionable to talk with them.
~ Mother Teresa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
metspitzer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:15:25 -0800, Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "sp" == sillyputty <karmictaragem@2die4.com> writes:
sp> For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or
sp> two 500gb in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a
sp> larger drive is faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID
sp> configuration using two smaller (500g) be faster, particularly
sp> with gaming? Thanks again.
A RAID 0 configuration will enjoy faster read and write access than a
single drive, or most other RAID configs. Whether disk access times
are important for gamers I don't know. I've been running RAID 0 on 3
drives for 1.5 years with no problems at all.
For convenience and a less risk consider 3 drives: a smallish (~ 100
GB) drive for the boot OS and page file, and then everything else in
the 2-disk RAID. Makes booting and diagnosing OS problems a lot
easier.
|
Yeah booting from a RAID drive is not the best idea. I have tried it.
The smallish boot drive is a very good idea or at least use a small
partition for the OS. It makes backing up much easier. Games can be
put on the RAID. I wouldn't say RAID was unrealizable, but a single
10 Gig partition is the only way to go for the OS IMO.
Actually if you back up often, go for using RAID for the main drive.
I never had the extra cash to try, but using 4 drives with one RAID
configuration would be sweet.
Get the "system" set up as you like it, and use Acronis for a backup
program. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
sillyputty wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again.
|
A single Western Digital Velociraptor 300GB, used to be
about $300. It has a max transfer rate of 120MB/sec and
rotation rate of 10,000 RPM. That will give you good performance
without going to RAID. It is mechanically a smaller drive, with
a heatsink surrounding it. You could purchase a separate 1TB drive
for data storage, a second one for backups and so on. Never trust
all your files to just the one drive (do backups).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=Velociraptor&x=21&y=27
For drive comparisons, see the storagereview.com database. That
will help you select just the right drive.
http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.sr
Paul |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
morvak
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
On Nov 18, 9:37 pm, sillyputty <karmictara...@2die4.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again.
|
Waste of money for gaming. Most of your games are on CD, and those you
purchased through Steam or wherever can be downloaded again if you
lose them.
If you have tons of photos, movies, CG art, documents, etc., then
maybe Raid.
But just to game? To get into the game maybe 5 seconds quicker? Nahhh.
..02 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CJM
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
"sillyputty" <karmictaragem@2die4.com> wrote in message
news:dfafac10-583f-4d5e-b50f-4f6328abdad7@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again.
|
There is a myth that RAID 0 is so much faster than a single drive, but it is
patently not true. The fastest single drives (Raptors excluded) match RAID 0
in the majority of real world circumstances - on rarely will RAID 0 make a
difference, and not in any gaming sense. Sustained transfers are faster, but
realistic usage (including gaming usage) means there is little benefit.
On the other hand, you face double the risk of failure!
Raptors will be faster in some situations (lots of small transfers) due to
the shorter seek times, but again, in the mixed real-world scenarios, the
advantage is quite muted.
Another option would be to have two decent SATA drives (e.g. Samsung or
Seagate) with the OS on the first part of the first disk, and your apps
(i.e. games) on the first part of the second disk - the outer part of the
platters spin faster and thus have greater data transfer rates (but same
seek time). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Geek Dad
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
On Nov 19, 12:33 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | morvak <mor...@gmail.com> writes:
On Nov 18, 9:37 pm, sillyputty <karmictara...@2die4.com> wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again.
Waste of money for gaming. Most of your games are on CD, and those you
purchased through Steam or wherever can be downloaded again if you
lose them.
Are you joking? I hope so.
You do realise that PC users install the game onto their hard drive don't
you?
|
Right. And like I said, if anything happens to the hard drive, they
still have the original CD or DVD or their steam account to re-
download the game. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Book 'em Dan'O
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
"Bob Fry" <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:3ahopfsi.fsf@mailinator.com...
| Quote: | A RAID 0 configuration will enjoy faster read and write access than a
single drive, or most other RAID configs. Whether disk access times
are important for gamers I don't know. I've been running RAID 0 on 3
drives for 1.5 years with no problems at all.
|
Only important in that load times will be quicker but games load their data
into ram so it really makes no difference as far as game play performance
goes. Might help in some games where the loading of new data can cause
slight pauses but that is due to poor programming methods in the first place
and shouldn't happen if a game is designed well. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Walter Mitty
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
"CJM" <cjmnews04@example.com> writes:
| Quote: | "sillyputty" <karmictaragem@2die4.com> wrote in message
news:dfafac10-583f-4d5e-b50f-4f6328abdad7@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again.
There is a myth that RAID 0 is so much faster than a single drive, but
it is patently not true. The fastest single drives (Raptors excluded)
match RAID 0 in the majority of real world circumstances - on rarely
will RAID 0 make a difference, and not in any gaming sense. Sustained
transfers are faster, but realistic usage (including gaming usage)
means there is little benefit.
On the other hand, you face double the risk of failure!
Raptors will be faster in some situations (lots of small transfers)
due to the shorter seek times, but again, in the mixed real-world
scenarios, the advantage is quite muted.
Another option would be to have two decent SATA drives (e.g. Samsung
or Seagate) with the OS on the first part of the first disk, and your
apps (i.e. games) on the first part of the second disk - the outer
part of the platters spin faster and thus have greater data transfer
rates (but same seek time).
|
They have the same rpm. Are you sure about that? Do the sectors hold
more on the outside (wider) section? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Walter Mitty
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
morvak <morvak@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | On Nov 18, 9:37Â pm, sillyputty <karmictara...@2die4.com> wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback about the gaming rig. I've decided to
order the parts and DIY. I'm probably going with an i7 940 and ASUS
P6T Deluxe LGA 1366 Intel X58 mobo.
For HDs I'm debating weather to buy one large (1T) drive or two 500gb
in RAID configuration. I understand that generally a larger drive is
faster than a smaller one, but would the RAID configuration using two
smaller (500g) be faster, particularly with gaming? Thanks again.
Waste of money for gaming. Most of your games are on CD, and those you
purchased through Steam or wherever can be downloaded again if you
lose them.
|
Are you joking? I hope so.
You do realise that PC users install the game onto their hard drive don't
you? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CJM
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gg1c22$i6g$3@news.motzarella.org...
| Quote: |
They have the same rpm. Are you sure about that? Do the sectors hold
more on the outside (wider) section?
|
Same rpm = same time per revolution, no matter where along the radius you
are.
Which means either:
a) there is a greater data density in the centre (smaller revolution
circumference)
or
b) there are more sectors in the (longer) outer tracks, and all tracks have
a uniform (or in reality, similar) data density.
I know that all simplistic diagrams show each sector as being an arc of an
equal number of degrees [and indeed it used to be that way], but in actual
fact it varies - hence b) is the reality.
See
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_disk_sector_structures.htm
Apparently, this technique is called Zone Density Recording (no, I didn't
know that either...) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob Fry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
| Quote: | "CJM" == CJM <cjmnews04@example.com> writes:
|
CJM> There is a myth that RAID 0 is so much faster than a single
CJM> drive, but it is patently not true.
There is no mythology, except that propogated by the ignorant. A
RAID 0 array will always be faster than the same drives not RAIDed.
CJM> The fastest single drives
CJM> (Raptors excluded) match RAID 0 in the majority of real world
CJM> circumstances
They cannot match themselves when the same drives are RAIDed. Think.
CJM> On the other hand, you face double the risk of failure!
Double of very small is still very small.
--
Freedom is not something that anybody can be given, freedom is
something people take.
~ James Baldwin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Doug Jacobs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Geek Dad <morvak@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Are you joking? I hope so.
You do realise that PC users install the game onto their hard drive don't
you?
Right. And like I said, if anything happens to the hard drive, they
still have the original CD or DVD or their steam account to re-
download the game.
|
The OP is probably thinking of RAID 0 (striped) as opposed to RAID 1
(mirrored)
I agree mirroring for a gaming rig is a silly idea. The amount of data you
stand to lose is going to be relatively small, and easily handled by
traditional backup methods. It also results in absolutely zero
performance improvement.
However, striped can theorhetically deliever better performance because
you're splitting the read/write operations between 2 (or more) hard
drives. The downside here is that if you lose a hard drive, you lose
everything. Data loss isn't a big deal for a gaming rig, but I don't see
you getting enough of a noticable performance boost from this to be worth
the hassle and extra complexity. If anything, I'd rather have 1 smallish
hard drive (maybe 200-300GB) for the OS, and a separate larger drive
(500GB) for my games. Even when playing a game, you just aren't going to
be accessing the drive(s) enough to justify RAID.
RAID for servers makes sense because you want both redundancy (mirroring)
and better throughput (striping) which is why most use RAID5 or even
RAID10
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CJM
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
"Bob Fry" <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:skpnqltk.fsf@mailinator.com...
| Quote: |
There is no mythology, except that propogated by the ignorant. A
RAID 0 array will always be faster than the same drives not RAIDed.
|
As I've already explained, in real world scenarios, this is often not the
case. There will be benefits for transfer of *large* tranches of data, but
there is no benefit for lots of small pieces of data.
| Quote: |
They cannot match themselves when the same drives are RAIDed. Think.
|
How about you think. Or just listen.
In most typical, real-world scenarios a single drive is just as fast as two
of said drives in RAID 0.
| Quote: |
CJM> On the other hand, you face double the risk of failure!
Double of very small is still very small.
|
The risk of my house burning down is also very small, but I still a) pay for
insurance, and b) make sure there are enough unobstructed exits.
The risk of failure *is* small, I've had 2 drives fail in the last year, One
was almost new and was a shock, but the other was perhaps 4 years old. I had
backups so I was OK, but if they had been raided, I would have lost twice as
much data. In my experience, the benefits are so minimal, the risks are real
and the impact of failure is potentially catastrophic.
In a gaming system, you might decide that it's a risk worth taking; but
unless the benefits were greater, I wouldn't bother. Having a new level load
in 8s rather than 9s is not sufficient to take such risks. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob Fry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: two HDs in RAID better than one large drive? |
|
|
| Quote: | "CJM" == CJM <cjmnews04@example.com> writes:
|
CJM> "Bob Fry" <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote in message
CJM> news:skpnqltk.fsf@mailinator.com...
| Quote: | There is no mythology, except that propogated by the
ignorant. A RAID 0 array will always be faster than the same
drives not RAIDed.
|
CJM> As I've already explained,
You haven't explained anything. You simply repeat the myths of the
uninformed. RAID 0 systems provide greater bandwidth than the same
drives unraided, in the lab, and in the real world. Latency is more
consistent across the drive also. The question for the OP is whether
that improvement makes any difference for games. I don't know since
I've never installed or used a game. If they don't use the disk much
after loading I wouldn't bother setting up RAID. If they do use the
disk during gaming, the OP will notice a performance improvement by
going to RAID 0.
CJM> The risk of failure *is* small, I've had 2 drives fail in the
CJM> last year, One was almost new and was a shock, but the other
CJM> was perhaps 4 years old. I had backups so I was OK, but if
CJM> they had been raided, I would have lost twice as much
CJM> data. In my experience, the benefits are so minimal, the
CJM> risks are real and the impact of failure is potentially
CJM> catastrophic.
An external backup drive is a good idea for anyone with more than a
few hours worth of customization in their system, raided or not. So in
your example you did not lose anything, and would not have lost "twice
as much", because you had backups.
My only disk failure in years was the external enclosure of a backup
drive. I enjoy so much better performance with the RAID 0 setup that
I'll certainly keep it. In fact I've been moving most of my Program
Files and other directories over to it. At work all our new machines
will have a small boot disk and two large disks in RAID 0 with two or
three partitions.
--
Lying is done with words and also with silence.
~ Adrienne Rich |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
