Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Angry_Games

hard drives & raid - benchmark and compare!

Recommended Posts

Are you sure about the raid being out with Lunix? The 64 Ubuntu kernal doesnt seem to have any difficulty reading the raid array though I dont use that for install.

 

 

Moved the raid question to this thread. Primaris vbmenu_register("postmenu_520055", true); please do not complain about searching or reading everyone that answers you questions with a decent reply has done this themselves or they would not be qualified to answer the question. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATTO 3xHD - Stripe 64 - Cluster 16k - FAT 32 - 10GB partition 67% Free

 

3xHitachi 80GB Sata 2

 

41yw.jpg

 

2xHD - Stripe 128 - Cluster 32k - FAT 32

 

HDTACH - Short/Long

hitachi22yo.th.jpghitachilong0da.th.jpg

 

3xHD - Stripe 64 - Cluster 16k - FAT 32

 

HDTACH Short/Long

28kv1.th.jpg16ss1.th.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom line is, if you do lots of video stuff, or have some other big files, then yes, you will see a good boost in performance. A bunch of small files, then you won't notice the difference at all, except on benchmarks.

 

i see a major boost in Windows OS booting and BF2, which consists of a bunch of small files gets accessed(WinXP) or verified(BF2)..... BF2 loading time got decreased by 80%, winXP boot by 50%... dont let me get started wit Adobe Reader and Photoshop :) i think what matters is the striping size that u optimize to either large or small files.

 

Bottom line is, i have a bunch of noticeable performance boost in almost every aspect (maybe thats just me, huh?)..... not just benchmarks.

 

anyway,

 

NOBODY has that picture of water-bottles-dispenser stacked up to represent different RAID types??? its been bugging me for weeks now!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

It looks like my post was attached to this bloated request for benchmarks. Can anyone offer some input to my questions?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Primaris:

 

Maybe I am just dumb, but what was the question again? And hasn't it been answered already?

 

Hello,

 

I want to upgrade to a RAID with redundancy. (It seems odd saying that, but that is what 0 causes )

 

1. Should I go with 3.0 Gb/sec drives?

2. If I go with 3.0 Gb/sec drives I cannot use the SIL 3114 controller correct?

3. Ignoring the 3.0 Gb/sec questions what RAID do you think is best, 1+0 or 5?

4. I'd like 500 GB storage. What hard drives do you recommend?

 

and added later in the thread: Maybe I need to learn what RAID is faster: 5 or 0+1? Then I can at least have a foundation to build a decision upon. Maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primaris:

 

Hi

 

All of your questions I think have been answered, a little at the time. I can say the following again

 

1. You will barely see any difference. The drives themselfs are not faster, just the signal going over the cable to the computer. Remember, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. The weakest link here, would be the harddrive, not the signal over the cable. (Regular "SATA1" "SATA 1.5 GB/s" is sufficient)

 

2. All 3.0 GB/sec drives are backward compatible, they work in any SATA controller. But they can only run in SATA2 mode in SATA2 compliant controllers.

 

3. RAID-0 is best for my needs. The best for your needs, well that's up to you to find out. RAID-0 has the fastest read and write speeds, but no redudancy. (I back up my important files anyways so a harddrive failure here and there is no big deal, Windows needs to be re-installed quite often anyways so it's no biggie :) )

 

RAID-1 has pretty good read speeds, but write speeds are not as good as with RAID-0. With RAID-1 you have a everything mirrored, so you can have everything that is on harddrive 1 on harddrive 2. If harddrive 1 fails you still have everything on harddrive 2.

 

RAID 0+1 is if you would want good read speed and write speed, but at the same time also have redudancy. For this you will need atleast 4 drives.

 

RAID-0		drive1   +   drive2

			  |			|

			  |   RAID-1   |

			  |			|

RAID-0		drive3   +   drive4

 

If my drawing skills are any good, from the picture above you should see 2 RAID-0 arrays, drive1+drive2, and drive3+4. These two RAID 0's are mirrored, so everything on drive1+2 is written on drive3+4.

 

You need atleast 4 drives for RAID 0+1.

 

RAID-5 has slow read speed and very slow write speed (ultra slow on the SIL 3114), but you are using parity bits and that takes time to compute and the redudancy is good. I don't remember exactly how it writes the parity bits, but it's something like:

 

drive1-data, drive2-parity_bit, drive3-data

drive1-parity_bit, drive2-data,drive3-parity_bit

 

Atleast 3 drives needed for RAID-5, the redudancy is better than with RAID-1, the read and write speeds are worse than RAID-1.

 

I can try to find some links for you so you can get some good information about RAID, and how it works in detail.

 

4. Depends on what you are after.

 

The best bang for the buck, based on a quick comparison I did on newegg shows this drive as the most GB/$ ratio, 3,12GB/$:

 

SAMSUNG SpinPoint P Series SP2504C 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

250gb $79.99 (4x250 = 1000GB, 4x $79.99 = $319,96)

 

Also this drive should be good, but costs a little more:

 

HITACHI Deskstar T7K250 HDT722525DLA380 (0A31636) 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

250gb $82.99 (4x250 = 1000GB, 4x $82.99 = $331,96)

 

And if you want larger drives, this one has a good GB/$ ratio, 3,06GB/$:

 

SAMSUNG T133 Series HD300LJ 300GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

300gb $97.99 (4x300 = 1200GB, 4x $97.99 = $391,96)

 

So let's say you use 4 drives, 250GB each in RAID-1, that would make your 1000GB into 500GB storage, but with good redundancy, and good read speeds and average write speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see a major boost in Windows OS booting and BF2, which consists of a bunch of small files gets accessed(WinXP) or verified(BF2)..... BF2 loading time got decreased by 80%, winXP boot by 50%... dont let me get started wit Adobe Reader and Photoshop :) i think what matters is the striping size that u optimize to either large or small files.

 

Bottom line is, i have a bunch of noticeable performance boost in almost every aspect (maybe thats just me, huh?)..... not just benchmarks.

 

anyway,

 

NOBODY has that picture of water-bottles-dispenser stacked up to represent different RAID types??? its been bugging me for weeks now!!

Hi

 

Look in the Nvidia website and under RAID there should be a Abode file for RAID installation and it is in thier, I have it so I can e-mail it to you if you PM me your address.

 

EDIT

 

I have just had a look and could not see it there any more, PM me and I will definately e-mail it to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Happy! Atto 2.1 link in your original post doesn't work - can't find anything other than 2.0 on the web / limewire / torrent - even ATTO doesn't have the file anymore. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's on the ATTO site. But you Need to Register for download

 

www.attotech.com/software

select ATTO Configuration tool

Halfway down the page is "Windows HBA Utilities v3.20"

the file name at download is "win_app_hbautil_3.20.exe"

 

EDIT: added link to this post in Post #5 on 1st page of thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...