NF4 SLI-D> Raid 0

[Guest Liquid]

Hey guys,

 

After recently reading the huge 30+ page on raid 0 stripe and cluster size ive decided to do a format and optimise my setup. Now, im running 2 250gb seagate 7200.8 satas (meh) on a dfi nf4 sli-d partitioned to a 15gb windows, 2.5gb pagefile, 225gb movies/iso, 115gb games and a 115gb music partition.. As far as I know you can change the cluster size depending on the data on each partition to get maximum performance.. Ive also read that you should have a 4to1 ratio when relating to stripe/cluster. Im after opinions on what cluster sizes to have and im leaning towards something along the lines of a 64k stripe size - 16k cluster for the windows partition.. for the other partitions im leaning towards 64 cluster for movies/iso, 16 (32?) for games and 16 for music. Does this sound right? (Should all the partitions be the same cluster size (64/4=16) or can they be whatever depending on the partition data?). Also, should i have the pagefile partition running in fat32 as it is only 2.5gb, if i should have it in ntfs what cluster size would benefit this? 16/4/?. I know i should benchmark all this im just after ideas of what would appear to be the best b4 i do this.. I did read 64/16 gave excellent results in raid 0 as well as 32/8.. I wish to have maximum performance for gaming, just unsure what cluster sizes to have for partitions and the like. Any help would be appreciated!

 

Cheers,

Darren.

[Bobthebozo]

I'm thinking of starting over with 32/8. How do you plan to resize the clusters? With a temporary Windows install on another drive?

[Guest Liquid]

i just made the windows xp cd with the files from sp1 so it would first of all work with a cluster size other than 4, installed windows and changed the cluster size with acronis disk director (yes actually works with ntfs) to 16k.. The others you can just right click my computer/manager and disk management and format the partitions with whatever cluster size. If you install windows onto another harddrive you do it this way as well.. Im thinking of using 32/8 and doing it properly from another drive.. i can definately notice a difference from 16/4 to 64/16 it seems alot quicker in read and load times throughout windows

[Guest Liquid]

anyway, at the moment i have 64/16, all my partitions are running the 16k cluster size as i dont believe you want 64/64. I have set my paging file as a 16k ntfs partition rather than fat32, does this sound right? If you get around to doing 32/8 or 64/16 tell me how it goes, im thinking of 32/8

[red930]

There is no single "right" size cluster for everyone. I use the default 4K cluster on the OS partition as that has given me the best overall performance for the file sizes involved.

 

On my data partitions on their own array I use 16K clusters because my file sizes average 3MB for mp3, 3MB for images and 100MB for videos.

 

With two drives in the array I stick to the 4 to 1 ratio.

 

Edited for clarity

[Fight Game]

you can only have one stripe size, right? So if your OS is 4 and data is 16, and you say your doing 4:1, then only one of these partitions are actually 4:1, right?

[red930]

I fixed the post to make things clearer.

 

You are correct. You select the stripe for the array and all partitions on the array will conform to that stripe size.

 

you can only have one stripe size, right? So if your OS is 4 and data is 16, and you say your doing 4:1, then only one of these partitions are actually 4:1, right?

[gord27]

With two drives in the array I stick to the 4 to 1 ratio.

 

 

what about 4 drives? i've recently come into posession of 2 more 120 gig drives and i'm looking to make raid 0+1.

[red930]

Well, since RAID-0+1 is simply two drives stripped together then mirrored, I would say the same 4 to 1 ratio would apply.

 

If you would like to learn more you can take a look at this guide put together are storagereview.com...

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref...raid/index.html

 

what about 4 drives? i've recently come into posession of 2 more 120 gig drives and i'm looking to make raid 0+1.

[Tivot]

Liquid, I would be careful about striping all of your stored data too.

 

Striping your OS, your pagefile, your game installs. Thats all good. But don't performance stripe data you want to store and care about keeping.

 

Look at the statistics. You are more than doubling the chance for lost data and failure. Thats why RAID 0+1 is favored, but its also the most expensive. You'd need three drives of the same size.

 

Even in highly available and redundant storage systems, you run into problems with RAID. Take a RAID 4 system using single disk parity for example.

In the event of a drive failure, you'll rebuild your data from the parity disk. What if that parity disk has developed bad sectors? You thought you were safe, you thought you went the extra mile to make yourself bullet proof... but, you've got data loss. You ask how often does it happen? ALL THE TIME. Just ask NetApp.

 

If you're running RAID0 and you get any bad sectors on either disk, you're going to lose data. You double the chances because now instead of hoping you don't get any bad sectors on one disk, you have to hope you don't get bad sectors on either of two disks.

[red930]

RAID-0+1 requires four identical sized drives. Two drives are stripped together then mirrored to two drives stripped together.

 

Thats why RAID 0+1 is favored, but its also the most expensive. You'd need three drives of the same size.

[Guest Liquid]

Yeah, i know its quite easy to lose things, i have most of my stuff backed up at the moment so its alright.. Is there a big performance hit not running raid at all?

Ive uploaded some results from atto, i dunno how to determine what seems the best what do you guys think? 32/4 results are shockin.. is it worth trying 16/16?