RAID or Single Drive?

JavaFox · Jan 31, 2003, 04:04 AM

Seems like an easy question.

I'm getting a new motherboard soon (okay, it's not NEW, but it's better than what I have), and since I recently received two 30GB IBM HDDs (they were RMA'd), I was wondering if I should RAID them. The thing is, my current drive is a pretty fast drive, so I'm not sure which would be faster.

I have two 75GXPs that I'd like to RAID, and one Seagate Barracuda IV (40GB) that I'm currently using. The HD Tach benchies are below (since doing the HD Tach write test erases your data, I opted not to run that test on my Seagate. I did, however, run the read test, and since it was pretty close to someone's benchmark I found online, I decide that their result for the write test couldn't be too far off from mine). The Seagate is on top and the IBM is on the bottom.

What do you guys think?

UberLord · Jan 31, 2003, 10:37 AM

Personally I'm against IDE RAID based on prior experience. I went with a similar setup using IBM disks and it was lightning fast! Oh yeah baby!

However, some games didn't like to play well
C&C Renegade
Black & White
NWN

NWN not playing well was the last straw, so I ditched the RAID and its been sweet ever since.

This may be a problem with the HighPoint RAID controller/drivers more than IDE RAID itself as some users using Promise IDE RAID said NWN worked fine off their RAID drives.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 31, 2003, 10:50 AM

I would raid all three togeather .... you would get a higher substained data tranfer and alot faster bust. (much faster system).. but here is the delema's you add a small amout of heat (need good airflow), risk of looseing all you data should 1 drive fail (rinning raid zero or 0+1), The IO overhead takes up more cpu time.... but you onlly really see the improvement when video editing, loading games, loadeing games levels (especially if you wanna get in first in multi player), windows booting stuff like that and thing Hard drive intensive.........

Rayder · Jan 31, 2003, 11:44 AM

I just use RAID ports for extra storage drives myself. I've never tried to set up an array. I just can't justify using multiple drives to serve one function. If there are going to be compatibility issues.....that furthers justifies my reasoning. I guess it depends on what you plan to use the PC for.

I used to play with a C64, so load times don't necessarily bother me. When I install a game, I don't want it hassling me just because it doesn't agree with a RAID configuration.

Just my 2 cents.....

Matth · Jan 31, 2003, 04:55 PM

Are you sure you want to RAID a pair of IBM DEATHSTARS

The 75GXP is about the most troubled drive there is, and if you stripe-interleave for performance, the "R for Redundant" does not apply...

(RAID = "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives")

The most useful level - RAID 5 with stripe intererleave and 1 drive out of N redundancy for N-1 capacity, is generally not available on reasonably priced IDE RAID.

ToshiroOC · Jan 31, 2003, 05:38 PM

Javafox, those particular drive models of the IBMs are EXTREMELY failure prone, and the problem with RAID (RAID 0, I'm assuming) is that it is much less reliable than JBOD because of the fact that one disk failing will make you lose the entire array of n disks...

JavaFox · Jan 31, 2003, 11:12 PM

Yes, I'm familiar with the problems that plagued the 75GXP line. These are RMA'd drives, though.

ToshiroOC · Jan 31, 2003, 11:16 PM

Even so, you risk total data loss on all of the drives if they are raided together...

RIV@NVX · Jan 31, 2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Yes, I'm familiar with the problems that plagued the 75GXP line. These are RMA'd drives, though.

So, basically you think that they will work better?
I have KT3 Ultra-ARU and this onboard RAID is real pain in the ass (you will see how slow it finds HDDs), but you can get a modded BIOS with much better RAID. I simply disabled it and connected my HDD to onboard VIA ATA133 controller.

JavaFox · Jan 31, 2003, 11:54 PM

So nobody thinks that two 75GXPs will be faster than one Seagate Barracuda IV?

RIV@NVX · Feb 1, 2003, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
So nobody thinks that two 75GXPs will be faster than one Seagate Barracuda IV?

Yes, they will be, but you will flame at slowness of HDD detection. Believe me on this (my P166MMX booted faster). Also, I don't think it is worth risk.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Feb 1, 2003, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RIV@NVX
Yes, they will be, but you will flame at slowness of HDD detection. Believe me on this (my P166MMX booted faster). Also, I don't think it is worth risk.

tell that to all the people overclocking thier cpus and video cards..........

thats the name of the game you choose speed/performance/risk or slow/stable/low risk

but thats just hey way I feel about it....... (thats what backups are for!)

The_Neon_Cowboy · Feb 1, 2003, 11:23 AM

oop's forgot to add ... I do agree though do IBM's boot like a turtle

RIV@NVX · Feb 1, 2003, 11:34 AM

No, you don't understand what I said.
JavaFox is getting KT3 Ultra-ARU mainboard. This mainboard has painfully slow RAID "Lite" BIOS on board. And you need to wait 15 seconds on each boot - this doesn't seem much, but you will see how much it is against instant onboard IDE detection. So, I wouldn't RAID drives, at least no without modified BIOS.
Also, two 75GXPs are more unsafe than one.

Jan 31, 2003, 04:04 AM	#1
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	RAID or Single Drive? Seems like an easy question. I'm getting a new motherboard soon (okay, it's not NEW, but it's better than what I have), and since I recently received two 30GB IBM HDDs (they were RMA'd), I was wondering if I should RAID them. The thing is, my current drive is a pretty fast drive, so I'm not sure which would be faster. I have two 75GXPs that I'd like to RAID, and one Seagate Barracuda IV (40GB) that I'm currently using. The HD Tach benchies are below (since doing the HD Tach write test erases your data, I opted not to run that test on my Seagate. I did, however, run the read test, and since it was pretty close to someone's benchmark I found online, I decide that their result for the write test couldn't be too far off from mine). The Seagate is on top and the IBM is on the bottom. What do you guys think?

Jan 31, 2003, 10:37 AM	#2
UberLord A Legend in Underwear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unknown Posts: 5,255 Rep Power: 0	Personally I'm against IDE RAID based on prior experience. I went with a similar setup using IBM disks and it was lightning fast! Oh yeah baby! However, some games didn't like to play well C&C Renegade Black & White NWN NWN not playing well was the last straw, so I ditched the RAID and its been sweet ever since. This may be a problem with the HighPoint RAID controller/drivers more than IDE RAID itself as some users using Promise IDE RAID said NWN worked fine off their RAID drives. __________________ Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout) Read my blog "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Jan 31, 2003, 05:38 PM	#6
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	Javafox, those particular drive models of the IBMs are EXTREMELY failure prone, and the problem with RAID (RAID 0, I'm assuming) is that it is much less reliable than JBOD because of the fact that one disk failing will make you lose the entire array of n disks... __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Jan 31, 2003, 11:16 PM	#8
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	Even so, you risk total data loss on all of the drives if they are raided together... __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Feb 1, 2003, 11:34 AM	#14
RIV@NVX Freedom is a feature. Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Croatia, Rijeka Posts: 4,476 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	No, you don't understand what I said. JavaFox is getting KT3 Ultra-ARU mainboard. This mainboard has painfully slow RAID "Lite" BIOS on board. And you need to wait 15 seconds on each boot - this doesn't seem much, but you will see how much it is against instant onboard IDE detection. So, I wouldn't RAID drives, at least no without modified BIOS. Also, two 75GXPs are more unsafe than one. __________________ -- Vedran

Jan 31, 2003, 10:50 AM	#3
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	I would raid all three togeather .... you would get a higher substained data tranfer and alot faster bust. (much faster system).. but here is the delema's you add a small amout of heat (need good airflow), risk of looseing all you data should 1 drive fail (rinning raid zero or 0+1), The IO overhead takes up more cpu time.... but you onlly really see the improvement when video editing, loading games, loadeing games levels (especially if you wanna get in first in multi player), windows booting stuff like that and thing Hard drive intensive.........

Jan 31, 2003, 11:44 AM	#4
Rayder Mostly lurking lately.... Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 2,161 Rep Power: 73	I just use RAID ports for extra storage drives myself. I've never tried to set up an array. I just can't justify using multiple drives to serve one function. If there are going to be compatibility issues.....that furthers justifies my reasoning. I guess it depends on what you plan to use the PC for. I used to play with a C64, so load times don't necessarily bother me. When I install a game, I don't want it hassling me just because it doesn't agree with a RAID configuration. Just my 2 cents.....

Jan 31, 2003, 04:55 PM	#5
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Are you sure you want to RAID a pair of IBM DEATHSTARS The 75GXP is about the most troubled drive there is, and if you stripe-interleave for performance, the "R for Redundant" does not apply... (RAID = "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives") The most useful level - RAID 5 with stripe intererleave and 1 drive out of N redundancy for N-1 capacity, is generally not available on reasonably priced IDE RAID.

Jan 31, 2003, 11:12 PM	Thread Starter #7
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Yes, I'm familiar with the problems that plagued the 75GXP line. These are RMA'd drives, though.

Jan 31, 2003, 11:54 PM	Thread Starter #10
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	So nobody thinks that two 75GXPs will be faster than one Seagate Barracuda IV?

Feb 1, 2003, 11:23 AM	#13
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	oop's forgot to add ... I do agree though do IBM's boot like a turtle