Is raid 0 worth it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Metroid2006
Metroid2006

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Metroid2006
Member since 2005 • 845 Posts

I will be purchaseding 2 new hard drive which one should I pick between this 2 hd?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148136

and yeah the main question is worth it on raid 0?

Avatar image for thesimpsons2
thesimpsons2

869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 thesimpsons2
Member since 2005 • 869 Posts

I heard that it gives pratically no performance increase.

Only needed if you want to make two identical hard drives act as one big one

Avatar image for Kiwi_1
Kiwi_1

2963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Kiwi_1
Member since 2003 • 2963 Posts

The main answer for the past three years has been NO. AnandTech ran benchmarks in all of the games of 2005, or 2004, forget which, in RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, and I don't recall if any more than that (Edited in -- thank you to Anna for the link to the AT article that I just mentioned -- see below).

RAID doesn't speed up disk access speed for game-size files at all. It actually is SLOWER than running a well-defragged single drive. The main benefit of RAID 0 is for very, VERY large files, such as video editing generates, and those can be handled faster with RAID striped drives.

Avatar image for icefox47
icefox47

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 icefox47
Member since 2004 • 199 Posts

I will be purchaseding 2 new hard drive which one should I pick between this 2 hd?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148136

and yeah the main question is worth it on raid 0?

Metroid2006

The reviews on the Western Digital look better. I'd go with that even though you get a five year warranty on the Seagate. If anything happens to your drive after three years (WD warranty), you'll need more space by then.

Also, RAID 0 does not offer very much improvement and usually is more trouble than it's worth. If you use your motherboard as a RAID controller and switch motherboards at some point, your hard drives might no longer be readable. You'll also lose everything on both drives if one of them fails. It's a big hassle for very, very little gain.

The best performance boost would be with a faster (10000 RPM or greater) drive.

Avatar image for --Anna--
--Anna--

4636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 --Anna--
Member since 2007 • 4636 Posts
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11
Avatar image for Metroid2006
Metroid2006

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Metroid2006
Member since 2005 • 845 Posts
but i heard everything load faster with raid 0, so what kinda hd set up should i get?
Avatar image for yoyo462001
yoyo462001

7535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#7 yoyo462001
Member since 2005 • 7535 Posts
RAID 0 is suppose to be fastest but most dangerous seeing as if one of your HDD dies then its over but RAID 1 mirror is slow but basically if a HDD dies everything is on another one.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#8 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
I've noticed a huge difference in going from a single drive to RAID. In fact, I wouldn't even bother with a non-RAID system, because everything just loads so much faster now with it.
Avatar image for Metroid2006
Metroid2006

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Metroid2006
Member since 2005 • 845 Posts
I've noticed a huge difference in going from a single drive to RAID. In fact, I wouldn't even bother with a non-RAID system, because everything just loads so much faster now with it.codezer0
are you using raptor on raid?
Avatar image for 205047247090237824329930235794
205047247090237824329930235794

741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 205047247090237824329930235794
Member since 2005 • 741 Posts
Out of the two drives you linked to, my first instinct would be to go with the Western Digital just because I've never had a problem with a WD drive and have owned many. I've also never had problems with Seagates, but have used very few. But I would probably weigh the extra 2 years warranty more heavily than better customer reviews. The reason for this is based on how I use my computer; I wouldn't expect to fill up a drive that size very quickly.

As for RAID0: I've got a couple of Raptors set up this way myself. I do notice the difference and I am happy with it, but it's not phenomenal. I would consider it something to include in a new system if price is no object, which was true for me when I built this thing over a year ago.
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#11 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
[QUOTE="codezer0"]I've noticed a huge difference in going from a single drive to RAID. In fact, I wouldn't even bother with a non-RAID system, because everything just loads so much faster now with it.Metroid2006
are you using raptor on raid?

Hell no. Raptors are louder than **** and belt out tons of heat. My first foray into RAID was going from a WD 80GB "JB" drive (the one Tom's Hardware first raved as "beating SCSI") to a pair of samsung 120GB's in RAID 0, and the difference was just astonishing, even on a motherboard that was famed to have "poor SATA/RAID performance" (my oldie). my throughput in Sandra went from a standstill of 19MB/sec sustained to 85MB/sec sustained, and it was very noticeable. Boot times slashed by several magnitudes, and those drives have lasted me longer than any other hard drive on its own. I figure that because they're in RAID 0, each one isn't having to work as hard to deliver the same data, and thus can last longer as a result. Right now i'm doing with a pair of Seagate 250GB's in RAID 0 and it's great. WD Raptors are overblown, overhyped, and too small (capacity-wise) to be worth their price premium. I've had nothing but hell with the WD brand... never again.
Avatar image for Metroid2006
Metroid2006

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Metroid2006
Member since 2005 • 845 Posts

right now I have about $160 to spend on a hard drive

1 - I can either 2x320GB For $150 from newegg

2 - I can get Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 2x320GB for $160 from newegg

3 - get Single 500GB hd $120 from newegg
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#13 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
My vote is for option one or two. That will give you (in RAID 0), more storage space than the single 500GB, and better performance to boot. I'm using two 7200.10 Seagate 250GB SATA II drives in RAID 0 on my newest machine and it's great. :)