RAID 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter @drian
  • Start date Start date
@

@drian

Is using two drives setup as a RAID 0 array, a wise move for Internet
browsing/E-mail/Photo editing/Video editing/Database work/Software
development, etc.? Even with a good backup strategy? Or would the
small-drive-big-drive be a better and safer combination? Or is it simply a
personal choice of sacrificing reliability for speed?

@drian.
 
Is using two drives setup as a RAID 0 array, a wise move for Internet
browsing/E-mail/Photo editing/Video editing/Database work/Software
development, etc.? Even with a good backup strategy? Or would the
small-drive-big-drive be a better and safer combination? Or is it simply a
personal choice of sacrificing reliability for speed?

@drian.
Click to expand...

Internet browsing makes little difference, but if you really want that
faster move the temporary files to a ramdrive.

Email, again no significant difference but I think a ramdrive might be
a very very bad idea for message storage.

Photo editing, depends on the system. For HUGE photos, on a machine
that doesn't have enough memory, a RAID0 would help not only for the
swap/paging file, but for the temporary files. Far better to just get
enough memory though, and if speed is more important than risk (or if
you are disciplined and save work regularly, again a ramdrive is
better for temporary files.

Video Editing- depends on what you're doing... If it's high-res,
uncompressed video, it could help to use RAID0, but if you only have
two drives and are doing multi-pass editing, have both an uncompressed
(or low-compression) source and destination, it's faster to use two
single drives, one for source and other for destination. With one
uncompressed and one compressed, it can vary, especially considering
the amount of processing to be done. If you capture (or transfer via
firewire) a compressed format, edit and save in compressed format, it
makes little difference, RAID has insignificant gain unless the
processing is minimal, like cutting out or adding segments, adding
audio tracks, etc.

For databases it depends on how large... most people don't have
databases anywhere near large enough to benefit, and most corporations
aren't going to be storing a large database on a RAID 0.

Software development- You tell us, are you doing anything with HUGE
files? If not, no significant benefit.

My take on RAID 0 is that it should never be used if you don't also
have enough additional storage to easily move the data around if/when
necessary. The more work you do with uncompressed video, the more
beneficial it'll be, but beyond that it's not worthwhile.

Also consider that it depends on bus used to implement the array. If
it's a RAID card sitting on the PCI bus, other devices will be in
contention for bandwidth, and there'll be higher latency. AFAIK,
SATA RAID integrated into a southbridge is the only way to get really
good all-around performance from RAID 0 with smaller files.


Dave
 
Is using two drives setup as a RAID 0 array, a wise move for Internet
browsing/E-mail/Photo editing/Video editing/Database work/Software
development, etc.? Even with a good backup strategy? Or would the
small-drive-big-drive be a better and safer combination? Or is it simply a
personal choice of sacrificing reliability for speed?
Click to expand...
You pay twice as much for something that's half as reliable...strange.
 
Conor Turton said:
You pay twice as much for something that's half as reliable...strange.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you try an Arco DupliDisk (you can connect up to
4 hard drives). It is OS independent and does not require any device
drivers and is a true Hardware RAID solution. I believe you can find
it at www.duplidisk.com.

Eugene
 
That is an excellent product, but I believe it is RAID 1 and not
RAID 0 as the OP requested.
 
kony said:
Photo editing, depends on the system. For HUGE photos, on a machine
that doesn't have enough memory, a RAID0 would help not only for the
swap/paging file, but for the temporary files. Far better to just get
enough memory though, and if speed is more important than risk (or if
you are disciplined and save work regularly, again a ramdrive is
better for temporary files.
Click to expand...

The machine I'm planning on using this with has 2GB of ECC RAM.
Video Editing- depends on what you're doing... If it's high-res,
uncompressed video, it could help to use RAID0, but if you only have
two drives and are doing multi-pass editing, have both an uncompressed
(or low-compression) source and destination, it's faster to use two
single drives, one for source and other for destination. With one
uncompressed and one compressed, it can vary, especially considering
the amount of processing to be done. If you capture (or transfer via
firewire) a compressed format, edit and save in compressed format, it
makes little difference, RAID has insignificant gain unless the
processing is minimal, like cutting out or adding segments, adding
audio tracks, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, high-res uncompressed video.
For databases it depends on how large... most people don't have
databases anywhere near large enough to benefit, and most corporations
aren't going to be storing a large database on a RAID 0.
Click to expand...

How large? I'd say 500MB to 1.5GB.
Software development- You tell us, are you doing anything with HUGE
files? If not, no significant benefit.
Click to expand...

The only large files may be the Source Management library, for check-in and
check-outs.
Also consider that it depends on bus used to implement the array. If
it's a RAID card sitting on the PCI bus, other devices will be in
contention for bandwidth, and there'll be higher latency. AFAIK,
SATA RAID integrated into a southbridge is the only way to get really
good all-around performance from RAID 0 with smaller files.
Click to expand...

The machine I am considering setting up this in, has SATA RAID 0 and SATA
RAID 1 built into the Southbridge.

One other question, why don't Western Digital make a SATA 80GB drive? I
can't find one anywhere. They don't even do a 160GB version either.

@drian.
 
The machine I am considering setting up this in, has SATA RAID 0 and SATA
RAID 1 built into the Southbridge.

One other question, why don't Western Digital make a SATA 80GB drive? I
can't find one anywhere. They don't even do a 160GB version either.

@drian.
Click to expand...

According to Western Digitals site, they make SATA up to 250gb, but only at
7200 rpm. There 10k Raptors are widely available at 36gb, and they have
announced the 72gb Raptor, but I don't think they are really shipping it
even though some suppliers say they can get them.

If you want raw speed, the 36gb Raptor is fast, keeping up with average
10k SCSI drives with no problems. Have built one server with Raptors, where
speed at a reasonable price was the goal, and it is fast. Hold out for the
72gb Raptors if you can.

JT
 
The machine I'm planning on using this with has 2GB of ECC RAM.
Click to expand...
Yes, high-res uncompressed video.
Click to expand...
How large? I'd say 500MB to 1.5GB.


The machine I am considering setting up this in, has SATA RAID 0 and SATA
RAID 1 built into the Southbridge.

One other question, why don't Western Digital make a SATA 80GB drive? I
can't find one anywhere. They don't even do a 160GB version either.
Click to expand...

It does sound like you'd benefit from RAID 0, but as always I'd
recommend it only in addition to enough OTHER storage space to be able
to move data around, especially if this is to be your only motherboard
(so far) that has SATA support, you might want a PATA drive for the
backup if you plan on keeping around another system with PATA support.

I'd expect WD to eventually make more models, sizes in SATA, but they
they're just converting one production line or factory at a time, as
they see the demand changing.


Dave
 
kony said:
It does sound like you'd benefit from RAID 0, but as always I'd
recommend it only in addition to enough OTHER storage space to be able
to move data around, especially if this is to be your only motherboard
(so far) that has SATA support, you might want a PATA drive for the
backup if you plan on keeping around another system with PATA support.
Click to expand...

I plan on eventually (near future) buying a Western Digital 250GB external
firewire drive. This would completely store the contents of the single RAID
0 array (both WD 120GB drives setup in RAID 0). At 240GBs (actually, 222,
111GB x 2), it would all fit on the 250GB external.

I'm thinking of writing a batch file that is scheduled for example, every
day at 3pm, which would "dump" all the files in all partitions to
directories on the external drive. It could be a batch file or scheduling
features in a backup application like Dantz Retrospective or Stomp Backup
MyPC.
I'd expect WD to eventually make more models, sizes in SATA, but they
they're just converting one production line or factory at a time, as
they see the demand changing.
Click to expand...

I see. OK. Thanks.

@drian.
 
JT said:
According to Western Digitals site, they make SATA up to 250gb, but only at
7200 rpm. There 10k Raptors are widely available at 36gb, and they have
announced the 72gb Raptor, but I don't think they are really shipping it
even though some suppliers say they can get them.

If you want raw speed, the 36gb Raptor is fast, keeping up with average
10k SCSI drives with no problems. Have built one server with Raptors, where
speed at a reasonable price was the goal, and it is fast. Hold out for the
72gb Raptors if you can.
Click to expand...

I've heard of this 72GB Raptor drive, but never seen it. That would be
ideal actually, if it came out. I'll need to have a look to see if it's
available for purchase. It would be a nice option. One of those as a
primary drive, and a WD 120GB as a scratch/storage drive.

Thanks.

@drian.
 
Back
Top