Raid 0 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Supa

People say I post too much

50 XP

1st April 2009

0 Uploads

1,368 Posts

0 Threads

#1 7 years ago

Just looking for more information about what RAID 0 does. I did read a couple of articles about what it was supposed to do, but thought it would be better to read what more "normal" sources have to say about it. Also some questions 1) Would it be worth it to RAID 0 two Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200RPM drives? How much gain performance would I see? 2) What exactly are the chances of a catasrophic failure with RAID 0, and what would cause those failures? If I end up not doing RAID 0 I'll most likely spring for a SSD sometime in the future.




*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#2 7 years ago

It's basically dual channel memory, but with hard drives. Data is written and read from two at once, meaning each has to do half the work, meaning faster speeds.

1. If you want better loading times, faster boot times - assuming your OS is going on it - then yes. Don't know exact numbers though. 2. The exact same as if you had one hard drive. With RAID 0 though, one fails, and you loose all your data.

Personally I'd just get the SSD.




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#3 7 years ago

:agreed

I have 4 Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB HDD's all striped (RAID 0). They have been going for two years now with no issues. Striping two drives will give you a modest to moderate performance boost, most notably in average read and write throughput. You really start to max out performance at around 5 drives.

Click here to see a RAID 0 performance comparison chart.

As far as catastophic failure is concerned, a RAID 0 array is no more likely to fail than a single drive is. The problem is, if one of the disks in your RAID 0 array fails, then you lose everything. This can be easily remedied with the use of disk imaging software (Ex. Norton Ghost) to create a backup. In the event that one of your disks fails, you can rebuild your array by simply replacing the failed disk and loading your backup image (that has been saved on a seperate drive of course).




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#4 7 years ago

*Daedalus;5469514 2. The exact same as if you had one hard drive. With RAID 0 though, one fails, and you loose all your data.

Personally I'd just get the SSD.

Chance of Raid 0 with two drives failing, is exactly double the chance of a single drive failing.

You have two drives in the array with no redundancy, thus twice the likely hood of a failure. If you had three drives, then it's triple the likely hood of a failure.

If cost is a concern, go for raid, if money is no object, go for the SSD. Although SSD's are cheap as chips now so money is unlikely to be a concern for most.

Kwould suggested using a ghosting program to resolve chance of data lose, true you can, but you may as well just do Raid 10 or Raid 5, it's far quicker than doing a ghost image each week, and has redundancy.

However, that said. I have the following drive configurations in my system... Raid 5 - 4* 320GB with Hot Spare Raid 0 - 3* 250GB (32k stripe size) Raid 0 - 2* 120GB SSDs Standalone 32GB SSD - For OS. 3* Standalone 1TB

Been running the Raid 0 for almost 2 years with no drive failures. Ok so 2 years is nothing, but considering most PCs last 3 years before being updated and capacity upgraded, 2 years is past half way. If it failed tomorrow...then I wouldn't complain; it just bought the upgrade/capacity upgrade forward by a year. Big deal.

Btw, never put W7 or WVista on a 32GB SSD. It fills up in 6 months and you'll find yourself rebuilding. It can't be avoided, it will happen to every Win 7 build with WIndows Updates enabled. Due to WinSXS.




Supa

People say I post too much

50 XP

1st April 2009

0 Uploads

1,368 Posts

0 Threads

#5 7 years ago

I planned on getting a 160/320GB SSD whenever I could afford it, probably the 160, as 320GB is really expensive. :/




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#6 7 years ago
I planned on getting a 160/320GB SSD whenever I could afford it, probably the 160, as 320GB is really expensive. :/

300GB SSD is just shy of $380 160GB SSD is just shy of $200

Seriously, just grab a 300GB.




D3matt

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

20th November 2007

0 Uploads

2,552 Posts

0 Threads

#7 7 years ago

Sgt. D. Pilla;5470639300GB SSD is just shy of $380 160GB SSD is just shy of $200

Seriously, just grab a 300GB.

You're joking, right? You make it sound like it's 20$ more. My whole system cost about double the cost of the 300GB SSD.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#8 7 years ago
You're joking, right? You make it sound like it's 20$ more. My whole system cost about double the cost of the 300GB SSD.

No I'm not joking. Check distributor sell from any reliable source.

I know for a fact DD, Ingram and MMT sell value.




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#9 7 years ago

Although I can't find any 300GB SSD's on Newegg, they have 2 dozen different 256GB SSD's - the cheapest being $473.99USD (and the cheapest 360GB SSD is $931.49 - that is not a typo). On the other hand, the 500GB Seagate 7200.12 is $39.99. You could have twelve of them for the price of one 256GB SSD, not to mention, stripe four of them together and their average read/write throughput is just as fast if not faster than the average SSD. Now I'm not knocking SSD's - they are likely to be more reliable than an HDD, one to one they are much faster, and they use less power, nor am I knocking your recommendation Pilla, but in my opinion SSD's still don't make the cut when it comes to price/performance ratio. EDIT: they changed their prices again. the cheapest 256GB SSD on Newegg is now $484.99.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#10 7 years ago

Although I can't find any 300GB SSD's on Newegg, they have 2 dozen different 256GB SSD's - the cheapest being $473.99USD (and the cheapest 360GB SSD is $931.49 - that is not a typo).

On the other hand, the 500GB Seagate 7200.12 is $39.99. You could have twelve of them for the price of one 256GB SSD, not to mention, stripe four of them together and their average read/write throughput is just as fast if not faster than the average SSD.

Now I'm not knocking SSD's - they are likely to be more reliable than an HDD, one to one they are much faster, and they use less power, nor am I knocking your recommendation Pilla, but in my opinion SSD's still don't make the cut when it comes to price/performance ratio.

EDIT: they changed their prices again. the cheapest 256GB SSD on Newegg is now $484.99.

Wow, Newegg is a rip off.

Kingston 256GB 2.5" SATA SSD 250MB/145MB Read/Write, 3Y Wty $286ex 0% CALL Add

That's a direct copy and paste from my suppliers website. That's my buy, ex GST. I'd sell that inc for $330.00 inc; which also includes my companies mark up.

(I'm not plugging my business, but that's Powditch IT's buy and sell price.)




  • 1
  • 2