AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: RAID 0 HD Recomendations
Topic Summary: Velociraptor vs Price vs other RAID HD's
Created On: 12/05/2009 09:04 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 12/06/2009 11:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: jcocanour

Originally posted by: Immortal Lobster



Originally posted by: jcocanour



Just to clarify.. we are talking about the 32M. Right...




the cache is relative to disk size, a 1TB drive typically gets 32MB, 2TB drives get 64MB, and 500GB drives get the lowly 16MB, but the 500GB reviews out there are equally impressive, so no worrys [IMG][/IMG]




So does that mean the a 1T 32M HD is going to be faster than a 500GB 16M HD


Shouldn't be. I'll check into that though, might be a factor of .5-1% if anything.

I hate to reference Toms...but they have one of the few 500GB tests, they pitted it up against two WDCs, both with 64MB cache, one a RAID edition.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...200,2430-5.html


Still faster avarage read/write then the other two, and high/lows are very close.

oh, and both are still faster than a Velociraptor

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.


Edited: 12/06/2009 at 11:59 AM by Immortal Lobster
 12/06/2009 11:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009

I guess that make since to have a higher cache to HD size ratio.. since there is more potential data that can be requested from a larger HD.. Right?

Thanks for the help Immortal Lobster!!!

-------------------------


 12/06/2009 11:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: jcocanour

I guess that make since to have a higher cache to HD size ratio.. since there is more potential data that can be requested from a larger HD.. Right?



Thanks for the help Immortal Lobster!!!


Yeap, and again, no problem, by helping you, I help myself too



you can also think of it this way if you want... Once you toss them in RAID0 it doesn't matter, 2 500GB drives with 16MB of cache become 1 1TB drive with 32MB cache

5 Drives become 2.5TB with 80MB Cache, or in your case 2TB with 80MB

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 12:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009

It's going to be sick!!! I was just wondering if it would be worth it to get some larger HD's with 32m cache so that when they are in RAID 0 I will have 160M cache...

Does the cache size play a part in speed or is it just a place to tempararly store info as its beeing acessed..

-------------------------


 12/06/2009 12:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Depends on the speed of the cace, if the file is less than the size of the cache, it shouldn't matter much, but I think the cache is just really a place where it stores stuff on the way from memory to the disk, a waiting zone if you will. if the drive can move it from RAM to disk fast enough, it theoretically wouldn't need any Cache.

I'm not that much of a hard drive wiz, so I'm not to familiar with Caches roll in the game, I'd suggest asking OverMind, but he's such a huge WDC fanboy he'd likely just bash the samsungs outright and make his WDCs look good lol.

I'll do some research on it and post back, hell, I'm unemployed, got nothing else to do


Found an answer faster than I thought I would....<finalized bing as defualt search engine> lol

A portion of RAM used to speed up access to data on a disk. The RAM can be part of the disk drive itself (sometimes called a hard disk cache or buffer) or it can be general-purpose RAM in the computer that is reserved for use by the disk drive (sometimes called a soft disk cache). Hard disk caches are more effective, but they are also much more expensive, and therefore smaller. Nearly all modern disk drives include a small amount of internal cache.
A soft disk cache works by storing the most recently accessed data in the RAM cache. When a program needs to access new data, the operating system first checks to see if the data is in the cache before reading it from the disk. Because computers can access data from RAM much faster than from a disk, disk caching can significantly increase performance. Many cache systems also attempt to predict what data will be requested next so they can place that data in the cache ahead of time.

Although caching improves performance, there is some risk involved. If the computer crashes (due to a power failure, for example), the system may not have time to copy the cache back to the disk. In this case, whatever changes you made to the data will be lost. Usually, however, the cache system updates the disk frequently so that even if you lose some data, it will not be much. Caches that work in this manner are called write-back caches. Another type of disk cache, called a write-thru cache, removes the risk of losing data because it only caches data for read operations; write operations are always sent directly to the disk


-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 12:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009

Very nice, Thanks, that explained it very well... I will have to give Bing a try...

If you'ed like you can go to work for me.. only prob is I think the wife would still require the money to be deposited into our account...so.... if that isnt cool with you then I wouldnt reccomend doing it..

Also, and this isnt really a big concern but any suggestions on SATA cables.. since these are bare bone drives I will need to pick up 3 more because 2 of the 4 that came with my MB have 90 degree angels on one end and are straight on the other end and the other 2 are straight on both ends, I prefer the 90 degree angel, it makes it so I can do some creative cable management..



-------------------------


 12/06/2009 12:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: jcocanour

Very nice, Thanks, that explained it very well... I will have to give Bing a try...



If you'ed like you can go to work for me.. only prob is I think the wife would still require the money to be deposited into our account...so.... if that isnt cool with you then I wouldnt reccomend doing it..



Also, and this isnt really a big concern but any suggestions on SATA cables.. since these are bare bone drives I will need to pick up 3 more because 2 of the 4 that came with my MB have 90 degree angels on one end and are straight on the other end and the other 2 are straight on both ends, I prefer the 90 degree angel, it makes it so I can do some creative cable management..





Lol, need money too,


As to cables, I bought some cables years ago, had clips, very nice, but the two most recent boards I bought have some kinda stupid plug, the clips won't work, so I can't use them, which is a shame because I like the UV reactive blue


A cable is a cable, just look for some that are well shielded, SATA2 is good for like 39" I believe, and its a digital transmission, so it's a cable

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 12:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009

Good, thats what i figured just wanted to bake sure before I get something that will hold my RAID back from it's full potential..

-------------------------


 12/06/2009 12:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: jcocanour

Good, thats what i figured just wanted to bake sure before I get something that will hold my RAID back from it's full potential..


The best cables I have ever owned, speed-wise, were those that shipped with my EPoX, but they broke

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 12:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009



Pretty sure this is what came with my MB

-------------------------


 12/06/2009 12:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
PC-GURU -
Lurker

Posts: 8018
Joined: 11/11/2008

Originally posted by: jcocanour

It's going to be sick!!! I was just wondering if it would be worth it to get some larger HD's with 32m cache so that when they are in RAID 0 I will have 160M cache...



Does the cache size play a part in speed or is it just a place to tempararly store info as its beeing acessed..


Cache plays a large part in the HDD,s handing of large data transfers.

Larger the cache the more data that can be transferred at one time at higher speeds.

As for Ideal HDD,s to be used in raid array, my experience has been sygate and samsung are raid array leaders.

Western Digital are my prime choice for single HDD,s hands down but look to not be fully compatible with raid arrays.

Please keep in mind that raid can be problematic in and of its self. Be sure to do your homework and find signed raid drivers before you start. Creating a system image for a raid config can be very problematic and restoration even worse.

If you think your going to gain some massive magical performance boost in load times with raid over single HDD your sadly mistaken.

You will gain bragging rights and benchmarks will be better. Load times on windows will increase about 2 to 3 seconds tops and load times on games will be 2 to 4 seconds faster.

Ultimately its NOT worth the headache or trouble.

Is where raid 0 config shines is large data transfers. 200 to 500 GB a pop the transfer rates can be quite a bit higher and shave minutes of the transfer times.

-------------------------
AMD phenom II 1090T @ 4.23 Ghz custom water cooled
Asrock 890 FX deluxe 3 mother board
4 GB DDR 3 1600 @ 1688 Mhz 7 7 7 24 T1 2688 Mhz NB
2x 1 TB WD Sata III 64 mb cache HDD,s raid 0
2x 5870 HD @ 1015/1300 Asus reference
Dual OS win 7 x64 ultimate & win 7 x32 Ultimate (bench os)
 12/06/2009 12:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Yeah it is Guru, I've gone RAID, and I refuse to look back, there is a huge difference in load times not windows, but applications, games, etc, You don't need signed drivers, and even then, Windows Vista, and 7 have made the loading of drivers that much easier. There is a great benefit to RAID, and for what little headache I have ever had it is well worth it.

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 01:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
PC-GURU -
Lurker

Posts: 8018
Joined: 11/11/2008

gone raid many times and yet to see more then a few seconds difference on load times in any game of any kind.

Benchmarks go threw the roof but that's about it.

-------------------------
AMD phenom II 1090T @ 4.23 Ghz custom water cooled
Asrock 890 FX deluxe 3 mother board
4 GB DDR 3 1600 @ 1688 Mhz 7 7 7 24 T1 2688 Mhz NB
2x 1 TB WD Sata III 64 mb cache HDD,s raid 0
2x 5870 HD @ 1015/1300 Asus reference
Dual OS win 7 x64 ultimate & win 7 x32 Ultimate (bench os)
 12/06/2009 01:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: jcocanour





Pretty sure this is what came with my MB


These are what I bought like 3yrs ago, great cables, but as I said...can't use tham anymore because of the clips
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16812123186

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 01:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009

Thanks for the heads up Guru!! Ya I ran into a prob with my WD HD's in RAID.. couldnt my RAID to backup onto my external HD (you and I had a pretty good conversation about that, thanks) I am willing to give RAID one more shot before I give up on it completely..

So when I set up my new RAID is there a way to copy everything including the OS from my WD HD so that I don't have to do a clean install...

-------------------------


 12/06/2009 01:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: PC-GURU -

gone raid many times and yet to see more then a few seconds difference on load times in any game of any kind.



Benchmarks go threw the roof but that's about it.


Sorry you've been unfortunate, like I said, I noticed some pretty big differences, especially with FS-X, CoJ, WiC, and many others. What did you set your stripe to? if you set it small, to like 32 or 64k, then yeah, the small packets don't show much improvement, I went with 128k, and while my benchmark scores went down some, load times benefited substantially for me.

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 01:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Resident Crustacean

Posts: 12033
Joined: 01/26/2005

Originally posted by: jcocanour

Thanks for the heads up Guru!! Ya I ran into a prob with my WD HD's in RAID.. couldnt my RAID to backup onto my external HD (you and I had a pretty good conversation about that, thanks) I am willing to give RAID one more shot before I give up on it completely..



So when I set up my new RAID is there a way to copy everything including the OS from my WD HD so that I don't have to do a clean install...


I've backed up and restored with Acronis just fine, Windows restore is a little more fool proof I've found, but the compression is non-existent. however, if you're going from a single drive install, to a RAID array, it's best to do a clean instal.

-------------------------

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 12/06/2009 01:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
PC-GURU -
Lurker

Posts: 8018
Joined: 11/11/2008

Originally posted by: jcocanour

Thanks for the heads up Guru!! Ya I ran into a prob with my WD HD's in RAID.. couldnt my RAID to backup onto my external HD (you and I had a pretty good conversation about that, thanks) I am willing to give RAID one more shot before I give up on it completely..



So when I set up my new RAID is there a way to copy everything including the OS from my WD HD so that I don't have to do a clean install...


sorry no, raid install is different from a single HDD install and they are not cross compatible. It wont work.

Fresh install will be required.

-------------------------
AMD phenom II 1090T @ 4.23 Ghz custom water cooled
Asrock 890 FX deluxe 3 mother board
4 GB DDR 3 1600 @ 1688 Mhz 7 7 7 24 T1 2688 Mhz NB
2x 1 TB WD Sata III 64 mb cache HDD,s raid 0
2x 5870 HD @ 1015/1300 Asus reference
Dual OS win 7 x64 ultimate & win 7 x32 Ultimate (bench os)
 12/06/2009 01:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
JC
Elite

Posts: 1808
Joined: 10/19/2009

BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh... but what... In that case maybe I will just keep the one HD that I already have my OS installed on as a "Backup" so if my RAID fails I can just plug it back in and go... Ya?

-------------------------


 12/06/2009 01:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
PC-GURU -
Lurker

Posts: 8018
Joined: 11/11/2008

Done that before lol, quite convenient.

-------------------------
AMD phenom II 1090T @ 4.23 Ghz custom water cooled
Asrock 890 FX deluxe 3 mother board
4 GB DDR 3 1600 @ 1688 Mhz 7 7 7 24 T1 2688 Mhz NB
2x 1 TB WD Sata III 64 mb cache HDD,s raid 0
2x 5870 HD @ 1015/1300 Asus reference
Dual OS win 7 x64 ultimate & win 7 x32 Ultimate (bench os)
AMD Processors » AMD Enthusiast Community » General Technology Chat » RAID 0 HD Recomendations

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information