Couple of threads started me thinking. I want to know the fastest system drive configuration.

Currently have one Raptor 10,000rpm as my system drive. Tried to RAID with another identical disc but performance was less than the single drive.

M'learned friends on this board talk of x-25's (yes I know what they are now! They are SSD's 32gb). Anyone tried solid states on a system drive?

I like a fast system, so what do I look for in an SSD?

Teach me noble lords of the transister. I want to go faster.

What RAID configuration did you have setup? I think you need at least 3 drives to actually benefit from RAID.

What RAID configuration did you have setup? I think you need at least 3 drives to actually benefit from RAID.

You do not need 3 drives to benefit from Raid.

2 is enough with striping or mirroring.

For better speed you would want the Raid-0 configuration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_arr...dependent_disks

How did you reach the conclusion that your raid setup was slower?

Any additional information about your system?

Perhaps you were doing mirroring (Raid-1) instead of striping (raid-0)?

What RAID configuration did you have setup? I think you need at least 3 drives to actually benefit from RAID.

You do not need 3 drives to benefit from Raid.

2 is enough with striping or mirroring.

For better speed you would want the Raid-0 configuration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_arr...dependent_disks

How did you reach the conclusion that your raid setup was slower?

Any additional information about your system?

Perhaps you were doing mirroring (Raid-1) instead of striping (raid-0)?

Techinical:

ASUS Striker 790Ii

8gb GEIL RAM

2x74gb WD HDD OR 160gb OR 250gb (3 different configs)

Q9650

Vista 64

Nvidia 295

It is possible that this is becasue it is on board RAID.

Vista 64 installs very quickly and straight forwardly , so I have been trying several combinations of drives (I have a 160gb 8mb WD with V64 on it that frankly runs well compared to complex solutions).

I know because the difference is enough to "feel".

RAID is 0. (Shows as a single 140gb drive)

But I did also run 3dmark.

As above, (Raid 0) 14308

with 160gb/8mb 14671

with 250gb/16mb 15640

Anybody got a good config?

If you want a good testing software for your drives run this one=http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1137/ATTO_Disk_Benchmark_v2.34.html smokes the bs results from 3dmark.

You do not need 3 drives to benefit from Raid.

2 is enough with striping or mirroring.

For better speed you would want the Raid-0 configuration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_arr...dependent_disks

The 'benefit' I was referring to is a RAID5 array (with a dedicated controller) which requires at least three drives to implement. This is the most common setup I've seen along with RAID1.

RAID0 is fastest and easiest to configure, but zero fault tolerance. So unless you're willing to risk losing all your data for speed, I hardly recommend it. The real purpose of RAID is to provide speed and redundancy.

Your RAID array could be using a bit of CPU cycles, which would slow down 3d mark. I wouldn't worry so much about benchmarks for drives in a desktop scenario.

Which of the following hard drive config opens apps faster and gives you the least stuttering and delays when there is momentary or heavy disk IO?

Stripped Raptors

Single Raptor

160GB

250GB

I'd suggest loading your OS and apps on a lone Raptor and putting your games on the other. That would probably work out best for you since a stripped array using the on-board controller won't help you out much anyway, especially when running CPU intensive tasks such as games or 3d benchmarks as the cheap on-board controllers require CPU cycles themselves.

What RAID configuration did you have setup? I think you need at least 3 drives to actually benefit from RAID.

No thats why we have the distinction of Raid 1, raid 5 etc. Theyre not just for kicks. And I dont think you can comment on the "real purpose of raid" as you should be aware its an evolving term I can think of at least 3 completely different definitions of what RAID actually meant and to some continues to mean.

Edited April 19, 200917 yr by OxfordWill

Redundant Arrays of Inane Drivel ?

how about putting a solid state drive in one of your PCIexpress slots if you want speed and dam_n the expense

Couple of threads started me thinking. I want to know the fastest system drive configuration.

Currently have one Raptor 10,000rpm as my system drive. Tried to RAID with another identical disc but performance was less than the single drive.

M'learned friends on this board talk of x-25's (yes I know what they are now! They are SSD's 32gb). Anyone tried solid states on a system drive?

I like a fast system, so what do I look for in an SSD?

Teach me noble lords of the transister. I want to go faster.

This is a big topic.

First, as pointed out above, RAID 0 is the best. RAID 0+1 is good but you lose half the total capacity. I actually run RAID 0 on my SCSI array, but RAID 5 on my Raptors. You do give up a bit of performance with RAID 5, specifically on the writes, but it comes with some extra peace of mind. RAID 5 has been supplanted by RAID 6 because it has extra fault tolerance. There's a possibility that at ever increasing storage capacity the time to rebuild a failed array, and the stress put on an array coupled with the fact that most arrays are built with drives from the same lot (i.e. if it was a bad production run you're going to have several bad drives) could result in yet another drive failing and losing the whole is what is driving the look at increased levels of parity.

Another thing to consider is that unless you're short stroking the drives, you I/O is going to suffer as you fill them up. I/O is an important number to think about; most people just look at the maximum transfer rates and their systems suffer for it. I/O are transactions per second; obviously the higher the number the more responsive your system will be. It will be more responsive because it's feeding those small random chunks of data your Operating System needs. In fact, if you ever wondered about why it took so long to boot (although Vista does a pretty good job of not doing this) it's because all the files needed are spread all over and it takes time to find them. In an array it could be worst....

Some early models SSD suffered from this. Especially those using the Infineon controller. The manufacturers went for top speed instead of good performance in daily usage. Currently Intel, which uses their own controller, has the best I/O of the drives. OCZ Vertex is a poor mans version of the X-25M and well worth the price.

**edit**

grammar, damnit, grammar

Edited April 19, 200917 yr by dave_boo