hard drives & raid - benchmark and compare!

[catkicker]

Question on 0+1 does it mean that you are running raid 0 on 1 set of HD's and mirroring those HD's to another set of HD's

[TorreyIsLDS]

Here's my latest.

 

 

64K Stripe, 4K Cluster

[red930]

Normally RAID-0+1 requires four identical drives. Two arrays are setup as RAID-0 then one array is mirrored to the other. If any one array fails the other takes over. Speed and redundancy but very expensive to implement.

 

I have seen RAID-0+1 built with two 80GB drives in RAID-0 and a single 160GB drive for the mirror but it was on a secondary controller card.

 

It seems to me that any drive used as a mirror that isn't as fast as the primary array will only slow things down defeating the whole purpose of RAID-0.

 

I love my RAID-0 array built with two Hitachi 80GB SATA II drives. I just backup everything that's important to me on other drives and computers.

Question on 0+1 does it mean that you are running raid 0 on 1 set of HD's and mirroring those HD's to another set of HD's

[Sorrento]

Thats the whole point of a high performance system... redundancy and keeping data safe should be done this way. If you can't do this then the performance in the system drops as soon as you implement these safe measures.

 

I love my RAID-0 array built with two Hitachi 80GB SATA II drives. I just backup everything that's important to me on other drives and computers.

[catkicker]

So I go with 4x 80GB satas raid 0 , and backup what decide is important on a spare HD.

[DeathEvil]

ok, I bought 2X250GB sata II disks from newegg but one came DOA so benchmarks in raid in next week (waiting for freaking RMA back) but for now benchmarks for single drive

 

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2690/snap18sy.jpg

 

I can predict some very nice scores with 2 of those drives in raid 0:)

 

Regards

[Angry_Games]

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.as...cookie%5Ftest=1

 

 

PCI-E 4x 128MB SATA II RAID-5 (RAID) controller card...

 

The card we looked at, the ARC-1100, showed impressive RAID-5 performance thanks to a speedy Marvell controller chip, a beefy Intel hardware RAID processor onboard, and an impressive 128 MB of onboard cache memory. In addition, the card has support for the latest Serial ATA-II standards, supporting both 300 MBps peak speeds and NCQ (Native Command Queuing) support, making it an ideal future-proof RAID controller card. Areca's ARC-series cards aren't cheap, but the cards can deliver very impressive performance when pushed hard enough - all the more impressive from a company who is virtually unknown here in the US.

[soundx98]

having a tough time here. the Hitachi SATA II 250GB are $123. (8 MB Cache)

 

The new Western Digital 16MB Cache SATA II 250GB are $125 (No NCQ though)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16822144701

 

The new 400GB 16MB Cache SATA II WITH NCQ are available next month. I figure about $200 per drive. Man, great storage is so cheap these days.

[Angry_Games]

did you get to about page 8 or 9 and see the RAID-5 scores?

 

you can instantly see the HUGE difference in a PCI-E card's hardware controlled RAID-5 vs the NF4's Si3114 software-controlled RAID-5

[red930]

I see from the article that they weren't impressed with the 16MB cache on the drives.

 

I've been seeing the same thing in the more recent builds that I've done. Once you step into RAID, the drive cache becomes much less important outside of burst speed.

 

I recently had a customer change their order to drives with 16MB cache after the 8MB cache drives had already arrived. I wanted to make sure the rest of the system was good instead of waiting for the new drives. I built the array with the 8MB drives and benchmarked the system.

 

When the 16MB drives arrived I rebuilt the system again and ran the benchmarks. There was absolutely no improvement in the scores.

 

I tore the whole thing down and started over. I got the same exact results twice.

 

I replace the LSI controller with a newer Adaptec repeating the two builds and got the same results. No improvement with the 16MB drives.

[DeathEvil]

having a tough time here. the Hitachi SATA II 250GB are $123. (8 MB Cache)

 

The new Western Digital 16MB Cache SATA II 250GB are $125 (No NCQ though)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16822144701

 

The new 400GB 16MB Cache SATA II WITH NCQ are available next month. I figure about $200 per drive. Man, great storage is so cheap these days.

 

well, I don't know about a6MB cache WD but hitachi Sata2 drives are really great, price is good, performance is great and for me most importantly they are silent:)

[chennhui]

Hi,

 

I am refering to

http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showthread...ighlight=spread regarding the spread spectrum clocking on Hitachi HD. Apparently the spread spectrum clocking option increase the burst speed on RAID 0 (with 2x and 3X HDD) for both 3.0Gbps an 1.5Gbps.

 

Do I need to enable the SATA spread spectrum inside the BIOS option, in order to benefit from the burst speed increase by the spread spectrum clocking? Does spread spectrum clocking decrease the stability?

 

Thanks.