Raid on Windows 7

Abarbarian

Abarbarian

Acruncher
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
11,023
Reaction score
1,223
Here are some results from my adventurous raiding exploits. It is how I spend my time I am a barbarian after all.
nod.gif


The drives I used were Samsung F3 500 Gb split into two partitions 100 GB for the os and the rest left unformated. I short stroked the drives down to 120 GB using the entire drive for the os .for some of the tests. In some of the results you will see that I have the drive short stroked to 100 GB so that will posibly skew the results slightly. I ain't going to redo the tests it is just step too far.

A bare install of 7 was performed with no up dates , no internet connection established and no other programs installed apart from the testing programs.

Firstly the standard 500 GB drive in single use mode.

attachment.php


attachment.php


Short stroked to 120 GB in single use mode.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 7standard.webp
    7standard.webp
    53.6 KB · Views: 485
  • 7standard1.webp
    7standard1.webp
    47.7 KB · Views: 499
  • 7stroked.webp
    7stroked.webp
    53.1 KB · Views: 468
  • 7stroked1.webp
    7stroked1.webp
    44.5 KB · Views: 488
Last edited:
Raid 0

Raid 0 results. In setting up your raid array you can set your bit size as 32 KB, 64 KB or 128 KB.

64 KB 500GB

attachment.php


attachment.php



64 KB Stroked 120 GB

attachment.php



attachment.php



128 KB stroked 120GB

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 64kbs7R0-1.webp
    64kbs7R0-1.webp
    44.7 KB · Views: 939
  • 128kb7stroked0.webp
    128kb7stroked0.webp
    50 KB · Views: 691
  • 128kb7stroked0-1.webp
    128kb7stroked0-1.webp
    45.2 KB · Views: 490
Last edited:
Raid 0 + 1

32 KB stroked 120 GB

attachment.php


attachment.php



64 KB stroked 120GB

attachment.php


attachment.php




128 KB 500 GB

attachment.php


attachment.php



128 KB stroked 120 GB

attachment.php


attachment.php



Finally a compact view of some of the results.

attachment.php



An interesting set of results overall. Now which of those configurations is best for gaming ? Although I am looking for the best set up for gaming I am willing to sacrifice a bit of speed for the reassurance that Raid 0 +1 gives but which bit size to go for. The results have baffled me at the moment. So if anyone can offer some advice it would be appreciated.

:D
happywave.gif
 

Attachments

  • 32kb7stroked0+1.webp
    32kb7stroked0+1.webp
    53.5 KB · Views: 481
  • 32kb7stroked0+1-1.webp
    32kb7stroked0+1-1.webp
    44.6 KB · Views: 507
  • 64kb7stroked0+1.webp
    64kb7stroked0+1.webp
    52.4 KB · Views: 517
  • 64kb7stroked0+1-1.webp
    64kb7stroked0+1-1.webp
    42.7 KB · Views: 492
  • 128kb7full0+1.webp
    128kb7full0+1.webp
    52.4 KB · Views: 483
  • 128kb7full0+1-1.webp
    128kb7full0+1-1.webp
    44.2 KB · Views: 452
  • 128kb7stroked0+1.webp
    128kb7stroked0+1.webp
    51.1 KB · Views: 546
  • 128kb7stroked0+1-1.webp
    128kb7stroked0+1-1.webp
    43.7 KB · Views: 456
  • CDM 0+1.webp
    CDM 0+1.webp
    107.5 KB · Views: 492
I aint gonna lye... I dunno wot u jurst said. :0
 
I dont understand why people bother shot stroking drives...

'Buy a 500 GB drive, but only use a 5th of it' :/

Do you honestly notice a difference in real world usage? ;)

Also, what the hell did you do to those screenshots! lol
 
very impressive set of pictures, they tell me nothing

you are more likely to loose your "RAID", and therefore your data, than me using my single drive

the "RAID" you are probable going to use is called "software" RAID, err, you wan't the real thing, go buy the hardware.

RAID arrays are sensitive beasts. RAID was designed for a server environment where any software that is installed on the system is ...

A) generally server grade software and validated for use on that configuration.

and

B) installed by professional IT personnel.

RAID is not tolerant of user error, and it is far from tolerant enough to take the kind of software/game/freeware software abuse hurled at the average home PC.


:wave:
 
What is up with the pictures :confused: thems is easy to read :D

Have just run the benchmarks so have no experience of real world usage. Wanted to see if short stroking or raid made a big enough difference to warrant its use.
If you do not try things out you never ever learn.

So you two guys don't think it is worth raiding or short stroking for the home user.

I did the tests out of interest with the aim of obtaining the best gaming experience on my lowly set up. Was fun trying anyway.

:)
 
You didn't answer my question. :D
 
Abarbarian said:
If you do not try things out you never ever learn.
Click to expand...

Quite so, quite so.

Don't pay any attention to Mr Mucks and the vanilla Flavoured one, they are nasty, mean, vicious and spiteful :lol:

Now just take two desertspoons of this and you'll be right as rain :D

I've been using a RAID 0 as the primary drive on my primary computer for about ten years now. A gen-u-wine hardware RAID 0, that is.

And it is faster than a single drive in everyday use. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

In all that time I've had one of the pair of RAID disks crash on me and I lost all of drive C. Still, one disk in ten years or so is probably about the same odds as a single disk for a primary drive.

And, er, just out of interest, just how did you capture those screen pix? ;)
 
Hey! :D

I aint got anything against RAID, its the short stroking i dont get... :)
 
floppybootstomp said:
A gen-u-wine hardware RAID 0, that is.

;)
Click to expand...

Which card are you using for the raid ?

What the ******* is it with the pictures thing. :D

Faststone Capture on 7 , then resized to 800x600 and rewhatever to less than 200kb in Gwenview on Mandy and posted here.

nod.gif


The short stroking made a feelable difference in my XP tests and hdd's are cheap as chips so why not :D
 
Back
Top