two HDs in RAID better than one large drive?

[sillyputty]

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.

 

[metspitzer]

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.

 

[Paul]

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/Produ...=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

 

[CJM]

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).

 

[Book 'em Dan'O']

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.

 

[Walter Mitty]

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?

 

[morvak]

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

 

[Walter Mitty]

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?

 

[Geek Dad]

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.

 

[CJM]

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...)

 

[CJM]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Anssi Saari]

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.

Is this really the situation in Windows land? In Linux the software
RAID 1 provides faster reads, since obviously read operations can be
striped from a mirror as all disks in the array have the same data.

Then again, a gamer who develops mods or anything else might well want
a mirrored machine.

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.

Yeah. As I recall, a few years ago both Storagereview and Anandtech
failed to show benefit for gaming from striping. One of the tested
games was Far Cry with its longish load times, but there was no help.
Apparently games don't do a large linear load into RAM, which is a
shame.

 

[CJM]

Is this really the situation in Windows land? In Linux the software
RAID 1 provides faster reads, since obviously read operations can be
striped from a mirror as all disks in the array have the same data.

This is true, but in practice it makes very little difference.

And if take off the time Intel Matrix Manager spends rebuilding your array
because you sneezed at the wrong time or because the wind changed direction.
I have a 2 pairs of mirrored drives at work, and the one time a disk failed,
it took the array with it (ie. it corrupted the array before finally
failing).

Yeah. As I recall, a few years ago both Storagereview and Anandtech
failed to show benefit for gaming from striping. One of the tested
games was Far Cry with its longish load times, but there was no help.
Apparently games don't do a large linear load into RAM, which is a
shame.

This is the problem. In theory, there is a small % improvement, but only for
large files. In practice, any improvement is much smaller.