gundersausage

The Death Of Raid

Recommended Posts

A modern home user is using much the computer to fix his photographs, edit his movies, and play awesome games which load much from the HDD... all these are uses a ''stripping" arrangement excels at.

Very, very few home users use their PC for those tasks. Many use them to watch stripping online though ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very, very few home users use their PC for those tasks.

Then they're not modern families. ;)

Definitely not. It's not rare to find digital camcorders anymore... these things need STR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've reserved comment on these proceedings because I knew there was little point to maintaining the truth in the face of a mob mentaility. But I can hold my tongue no longer after reading the crass comments in this thread towards anyone who might arrive at a different conclusion than one's own.

Maybe you should skip past the crass comments and read the well written posts that destroy every single point you raised.

Your meager 10% improvement that your all excited about, I hope you realize that you could gain that by simply doubling the size of your current drive - oh wait, thats what you did when you striped them together.....

The constant babbling about STR is almost too much to bear: It's handled here in depth....

But once again, and man am I getting sick of pointing this out - the comparison is between how 2 properly configured disks compare against a raid 0 - and for the truly disk bound IO operations, say unpacking a 5 gig .tar file - drive a > drive b is going to destroy a raid 0 array unpacking to itself every single time.

You want that 8 percent performance boost? Go buy a drive twice as big and use your current drive as your second work disk.

Oh, and as far as IPEAK - It shows the same 8%-10% (im not going to go verify) performance boost with RAID 0 (or a disk with twice the capacity) as your friends tests show.

This has all been covered in depth in about 15 other threads at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the comparison is between how 2 properly configured disks compare against a raid 0

This assumes the minimal RAID0 configuration - just 2 disks. Typically such consumer level systems suffer from severe bottlenecks in IO bandwith (like e.g. the SR testbed), so the theoretically increased STR from RAID0 will result in little to no practical benefit.

Using more disks in a less constrained environment for a properly configured RAID0 quickly leaves the JBODs trailing behind. Please see the example I posted a couple of messages above (25.5 GB copied within the same RAID0 volume in about 157 seconds).

Another commonly neglected aspect is the time spent for organizing JBOD - copying files to balance disk space usage isn't needed in a RAID0, and moving files within a RAID0 is blindingly fast. Of course, not even SR has an IPEAK benchmark for this - or did I miss something? <_<

Well, whatever. Putting all your drives in a single RAID0 is probably just as inane as participating in the anti-RAID witch hunt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This assumes the minimal RAID0 configuration - just 2 disks.

Yes, that is the assumption, since that is pretty much the scope of the topic. If your allowed to bring a 12 disk Atlas 10K V volume into the mix, then I'm allowed to test transfers between 2 RAM drives.

Moving files is as fast on a single disk as it is on a 12 disk stripe.

If your excessively moving files between volumes then its set up wrong. My file output, when finished processing, is in its final resting place - and I don't move files based on free space, I move them based on what should be on what disk. When that disk becomes too small (example, media drive, holds movies and mp3), its time to get a larger disk or remove some stuff. I don't separate same types of data across all my drives just to make room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your excessively moving files between volumes then its set up wrong.  My file output, when finished processing, is in its final resting place - and I don't move files based on free space, I move them based on what should be on what disk.  When that disk becomes too small (example, media drive, holds movies and mp3), its time to get a larger disk or remove some stuff.

Actually you could have better performance by getting a new disk and RAID0 it with the overflowing one.

Of course, your system might already be bottlenecked by IO bandwith so the actual improvement might not be that significant. But your volume layout and workflow seems to be the ideal scenario for benefitting from RAID0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your excessively moving files between volumes then its set up wrong.  My file output, when finished processing, is in its final resting place - and I don't move files based on free space, I move them based on what should be on what disk.  When that disk becomes too small (example, media drive, holds movies and mp3), its time to get a larger disk or remove some stuff.

Actually you could have better performance by getting a new disk and RAID0 it with the overflowing one.

Of course, your system might already be bottlenecked by IO bandwith so the actual improvement might not be that significant. But your volume layout and workflow seems to be the ideal scenario for benefitting from RAID0.

Except for a few small details:

RAID 0 performance boost is questionable.

The final resting place for my data would -never- be on a stripe

These days hard drive space is so limiting, that I would never intentially purchase another drive the same size as one I have, due to limited number of bays. If my 80 gig runs out, I'm buying a 160 or larger, 2 80's just use up two bays and lose their value faster. I use 80 GB as an example because I have one sitting on my shelf - its not in use because all 5 bays are full of larger / same size drives.

As hinted above, for typical workstation usage, you can expect about the same performance from a striped set of 80's as you can from a single 160 due to the size differential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now