Which raid

Ro87

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
I currently have a 500GB SATA hard drive and I'm looking into getting another one for a raid setup, however I'm not sure which setup to go with.

I use the pc mostly for video editing and from what I've read, Raid 0 seems the best option to go with... Please advise:):)
 
I don't know much about RAID, but I would say this, unless the speed is really holding you back why not just get more space? Unless it's redundency you're after?
 
Raid 0

There is a good speed boost in my opinion. Just do not have 1tb of raid space that is not backup, even though i have had more hdd's die than raid 0 crashing it would be a good idea to back up :D.

Raid 0 is very reliable actually but the risk is there, in any case with or without raid you should back up because hdd's have just as big a chance of crashing when not in raid or in raid.
 
Raid 0 is very reliable actually but the risk is there, in any case with or without raid you should back up because hdd's have just as big a chance of crashing when not in raid or in raid.

But with RAID 0 only one has to fail for both to lose all their data. The math is simple. Its twice as risky
 
But with RAID 0 only one has to fail for both to lose all their data. The math is simple. Its twice as risky

Well when you run raid 0 you know there is a chance it can fail, so back up and everything will be fine. When running a single drive you know it can fail.

Just like someone who has 1tb drive full of stuff they need should back up running a 1tb raid config should be backed up.

In fact you should back up any important data regardless. If it fails plug it out get it replaced and carry on. a simple image will see you back up and running in no time :D.
 
I currently have a 500GB SATA hard drive and I'm looking into getting another one for a raid setup, however I'm not sure which setup to go with.

I use the pc mostly for video editing and from what I've read, Raid 0 seems the best option to go with... Please advise:):)

I've written a lot on RAID in the past and don't have the time right now to repeat it all ;) But, essentially, RAID/Disk IO is a complex beast and there is 99% chance that you will see absolutely zero noticeable improvement in performance from implementing RAID0.

Go for RAID1 to gain similar improvements to performance as RAID0 (albeit probably very close to zero noticeable improvement); at least you can protect your data....
 
Thanx for ur replies guys, and gals. I was going to go ahead with a raid0 setup until i read conradl's reply... I thawt raid1 just mirrored the data, without a major performance increase. Doesnt it just require u to double ur storage capacity?
 
As a rule of thumb, increasing the number of disks in an array will increase disk IO performance, when compared to a single disk (although the real benefit may be small).

RAID0 works by stripping data to the array. When writing to disk IO is split up into segments (the stripe size) and written to two (or more) disks concurrently, thus increasing write IO. When this data is read from the disk, it once again reads from multiple disks, increasing read IO. There are no RAID calculations taking place, thus implementing RAID 0 incurs no RAID performance penalty.

RAID1 works by creating a mirror of one (or more) disks on another disk. When writing to disk, IO is simultaneously written to two disks (based on stripe size). A write operation therefore requires a RAID calculation, and is why some people consider RAID1 to have "slow" writes (the actual impact is minimal). When reading from a RAID1 array, the controller is aware that both disks contain data and, if the OS supports split reads (most do), can therefore read at speeds similar to RAID0. RAID1 therefore has write speeds similar to a single disk, and read speeds similar to RAID0.

RAID10/01 (or 1+0, or 0+1), is a striped, mirrored disk; or mirrored, striped disk, i.e. two disks are striped (for performance), and then each disk in the striped pair mirrored (for redundancy). This is the fastest type of RAID generally used, and also uses the most disks (minimum of four).

WRT to increasing the performance by using RAID, you have to consider three things:

The type of IO (Read/Write);
the nature of the IO (Sequential/Random);
and the the size of IO (small files, large files).

When considering RAID it is also important to understand the importance of the RAID controller. A hardware RAID solution is faster than software RAID (on board RAID is not hardware RAID). Certain IO operations benefit more from having large cache (some storage units have 1TB!), than the underlying disk system. The average on-board fake-raid controller has no cache which further reduces any possible increases in performance....
 
Last edited:
So doubling the transfer rate on your pc will show no difference?

I disagree i loved raid, was much faster than a stock hdd. I would advise testing it raid0 for yourself and seeing if you notice anything because i know i sure did.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/394/6

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.
 
Last edited:
I'v got onboard raid on my Gigabyte GA-P45-UD3R. Surely it cant be THAT bad as u say conradl? I'm going to try a raid0 setup and see if its worth it, then mite look into raid 10. Thanx again 4 ur advice guys:)
 
It is not that bad man, it is awesome in my opinion.

As i said though you have the ability to test it yourself and make your opinion so do that and let us know your thoughts.
 
Is RAID0 on SSDs a good idea? From what I have seen, it gives you a considerable performance boost.
 
Yea it will double the transfer rate. So depending on the ssd you have it should make a difference, if you have an ssd capable of 200mb r/w then unless you use a program that uses that much i don't think you will see much of an improvement.
 
So doubling the transfer rate on your pc will show no difference?

I disagree i loved raid, was much faster than a stock hdd. I would advise testing it raid0 for yourself and seeing if you notice anything because i know i sure did.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/394/6

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Not saying it will show no difference; just that any positive benefit will most likely be minimal for the average user - and even unnoticeable. Also, there are several factors which could limit any positive performance gains.

As an example, I did a lot of testing to determine the impact of various RAID configurations on a Citrix server. A single user (running a scripted set of real world applications) showed an average <1% increase in performance running a RAID1 versus a single disk configuration. However, running RAID increased the user density from around 45 to 80 users.

With these particular tests disk IO maxed at 100 for 3 seconds (arbitrary figure to illustrate the point) IOps for a single user on a single disk, i.e. not very high. Introducing the second disk in a RAID0 configuration theoretically doubled the IO capacity of the array - however the tests showed that the IO now peaked at 150 IOps, for 2 seconds (for a single user launching an application).

When we started to load the server using a single disk queue quickly started to climb, until the server stopped working. With the RAID in place we were able to load more users before we reached a tipping point where disk IO caused a huge problem.

So, to summarise, any increase will depend largely on IO, and the type of work performed. If your IO is 100 IOps, for 5 seconds, and your RAID doubles performance; then your task will take 2.5 seconds to complete. However, if IO is not a limiting factor, and the task only demands 100 IOps, then splitting your load over two or more disks will have no impact (since each disk will now supply 50 IOps, instead of one supplying 100 IOps).
 
I'v got onboard raid on my Gigabyte GA-P45-UD3R. Surely it cant be THAT bad as u say conradl? I'm going to try a raid0 setup and see if its worth it, then mite look into raid 10. Thanx again 4 ur advice guys:)

Not saying that it's bad. I'm just saying that the results for an average user will most likely be underwhelming. I do not think it will be money well spent to implement RAID0 for a performance gain - nor will RAID10. You simply will not get the results that you anticipated; be careful of benchmarks here ;)

R2500 on RAID10 versus R2500 towards a new display card is s really simple choice IMHO....
 
Is RAID0 on SSDs a good idea? From what I have seen, it gives you a considerable performance boost.

The question here is where does it boost performance? The reason why you use RAID to increase performance is primarily to boost IOps (IO/second). Access time is already quite low on an SDD (<1ms) so reducing it further will not benefit applications much.

It may increase throughput (MB/s), but as KD said, how many applications require 200MB+ transfer rate? It will certainly assist in copying movies faster, but the price/MB is prohibitive to use SDD for storage....
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X