Recommendations for RAID setup..

**temeteus82** · Jul 24, 2008, 01:54 PM

Hi there!

I need some recommendations how I should setup RAID when I get two more drivers that match my current two drives. Mainly I'm pondering what levels to use for my boot drive and the storage drive. You can see the drives in my specs and the mobo that is in use.

Any input would be welcome!

Lowfat · Jul 24, 2008, 03:09 PM

I would suggest a RAID5 setup, but I sure wouldn't suggest a RAID5 setup with an onboard RAID controller.

**temeteus82** · Jul 24, 2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lowfat

I would suggest a RAID5 setup, but I sure wouldn't suggest a RAID5 setup with an onboard RAID controller.

So is the Intel's ICH9R that bad?

[EDIT] I was thinking to put the main OS [Seagate 320Gb] drive as RAID1 setup and the store [WD 500GB] as RAID0 setup.

Judas · Jul 24, 2008, 07:04 PM

the ICH9R and Raid 0/5 performance is top performing...

intel's matrix controllers rock..

if you want to go Raid 5 for backup purposes... go for it...

but i've found that i'd much rather have a solid backup external hardrive for everything and usb flash drive for my critical files on hand, go straight raid 0 for insane performance.

i've still have YET to see someone beat my raid performance with any onboard/add in card....

mkk · Jul 24, 2008, 11:41 PM

I'd rather go for one of the speedier brand new drives like Western Digital or Samsung's 640GB models that are both fast and not very noisy. The 7200.10's aren't so fast anymore, but you could certainly use the two you have in striped (RAID-0) mode for operations that can use the combined speed. I'd use the new single drive for the operating system.

RAID-5 is kinda like the holy grail of RAID. It's awesome in theory but it's not for everyone, mostly because the write performance varies from unimpressive to downright bad depending on the interface. I haven't seen even dedicated hardware RAID-5 cards deliver good write performance yet. The RAID-5 model introduces a lot of overhead that apparently is not easily worked around. It's fine for servers that need some type of redundancy but for home users it's better to just do regular backups and maybe stripe a couple of old drives together to increase their practical lifespan. Simply buying a brand new drive makes a good enough upgrade for most. In your case the existing drives aren't exactly slow but a new one like I recommended still has 40-45% faster sequential read/writes.

Unless of course if you were to get the two other drives for a really good price and don't have to buy them at full retail price. Four drives doing a RAID 0+1 setup should deliver better overall performance than RAID-5 with the added safety if you need that. Or just stripe them all together for crazy performance but then I'd also want another drive for the system AND separate backup storage.

**temeteus82** · Jul 25, 2008, 08:37 AM

mkk, I'm able to get good deal of that 7900.10 320GB seagate in here. So that's why I'm getting one. And those F1 drivers from Samsung have hight RMA rate in here every one is trying to avoid them because they have heat issues.

Nachbrenner · Jul 25, 2008, 04:27 PM

Check out: Tech ARP - The RAID Guide

Matth · Jul 25, 2008, 07:00 PM

One thing to watch with matrix RAID, is that while it may seem attractive to "RAID partition", with a reliability mirror (1) and a speed stripe (0) on the same disk, crossing betwen the two would be a long seek, so seperate drive pairs are better, unless the two matrixed destinations will not be used concurrently.

**temeteus82** · Jul 31, 2008, 03:05 PM

A little update. I just got the main OS RAID0 partition done and all drivers and browsers etc installed. And I must say man I'm liking how fast things work.

Now back to saving mode for the WD drive

Just Learnin' · Jul 31, 2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

i've still have YET to see someone beat my raid performance with any onboard/add in card....

This is ICH9R RAID0 Matrix 250GB slice of 6 x 500GB Seagate 7200.11 drives: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/1158461-post98.html Think I beat Judas on average read with that setup.

Quote:

A little update. I just got the main OS RAID0 partition done and all drivers and browsers etc installed. And I must say man I'm liking how fast things work.

Is this your first RAID0 Temeteus? Nice aren't they!

**temeteus82** · Jul 31, 2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Learnin'

Is this your first RAID0 Temeteus? Nice aren't they!

Yeah my first RAID setup at home

Judas · Jul 31, 2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Learnin'

This is ICH9R RAID0 Matrix 250GB slice of 6 x 500GB Seagate 7200.11 drives: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/1158461-post98.html Think I beat Judas on average read with that setup.

It's about bloody time.

After my initial setup, and quick run of the tests... i've been king of the hill in the hd speeds for far to long.

My last test run was back in november, about 2 weeks after i setup the system.

I'm sure with a little bit more brute force configuring, someone with the seagate drives could pull numbers that are absalutely insane.

my best burst is a little over 5500MB/s
my best random access was 6.9ms
my best Average Read is a little over 650MB/s
my lowest cpu usage was 5.6%

I really wish the makers of HDTach would provide a much more demanding and thorough benchmarking system..

Provide larger file size read and rights.

H3X4D3C1M4L · Aug 15, 2008, 05:39 PM

If you have 4 drives RAID 0+1 is a viable option. You can tolerate the loss of 2 drives and still keep going. But just to reaffirm what has already been said RAID5 on host based (i.e. most every controller integrated into common motherboards) RAID controllers is just not going to perform too well.

Jul 24, 2008, 03:09 PM	#2
Lowfat Xtreme Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Grande Prairie, AB, Can Posts: 4,254 Rep Power: 101	I would suggest a RAID5 setup, but I sure wouldn't suggest a RAID5 setup with an onboard RAID controller. __________________

Jul 25, 2008, 07:00 PM	#8
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	One thing to watch with matrix RAID, is that while it may seem attractive to "RAID partition", with a reliability mirror (1) and a speed stripe (0) on the same disk, crossing betwen the two would be a long seek, so seperate drive pairs are better, unless the two matrixed destinations will not be used concurrently. __________________ Mary had a little lamb, Her father shot it dead Now Mary takes her lamb to school, Between two crusts of bread

Jul 24, 2008, 11:41 PM	#5
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,490 Rep Power: 132 System Specs	I'd rather go for one of the speedier brand new drives like Western Digital or Samsung's 640GB models that are both fast and not very noisy. The 7200.10's aren't so fast anymore, but you could certainly use the two you have in striped (RAID-0) mode for operations that can use the combined speed. I'd use the new single drive for the operating system. RAID-5 is kinda like the holy grail of RAID. It's awesome in theory but it's not for everyone, mostly because the write performance varies from unimpressive to downright bad depending on the interface. I haven't seen even dedicated hardware RAID-5 cards deliver good write performance yet. The RAID-5 model introduces a lot of overhead that apparently is not easily worked around. It's fine for servers that need some type of redundancy but for home users it's better to just do regular backups and maybe stripe a couple of old drives together to increase their practical lifespan. Simply buying a brand new drive makes a good enough upgrade for most. In your case the existing drives aren't exactly slow but a new one like I recommended still has 40-45% faster sequential read/writes. Unless of course if you were to get the two other drives for a really good price and don't have to buy them at full retail price. Four drives doing a RAID 0+1 setup should deliver better overall performance than RAID-5 with the added safety if you need that. Or just stripe them all together for crazy performance but then I'd also want another drive for the system AND separate backup storage.

Jul 25, 2008, 04:27 PM	#7
Nachbrenner DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 80 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Check out: Tech ARP - The RAID Guide

Aug 15, 2008, 05:39 PM	#13
H3X4D3C1M4L DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,794 Rep Power: 0	If you have 4 drives RAID 0+1 is a viable option. You can tolerate the loss of 2 drives and still keep going. But just to reaffirm what has already been said RAID5 on host based (i.e. most every controller integrated into common motherboards) RAID controllers is just not going to perform too well.