Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Different RAID configurations on one system Possible?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

Poll: What seems to be the best setup for speed? (2 member(s) have cast votes)

What would be the BEST setup for Read & Write speeds in general? (Don't think about buffer, seek times, etc of the drive, but in general the best setup)

  1. One SSD only (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. SSD with RAID 0 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. A mechanical HD with a large buffer & fast read/write times (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. A mechanical HD with RAID 0 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. A mechanical HD with dual RAID 0 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. SSD with RAID 5 (1 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  7. A mechanical HD with RAID 5 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. Other - please explain (1 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 WDDD

WDDD

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:04 PM

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:10 PM

Hi!
I've tried searching the internet, but I couldn't find anything on what I wanted to know. I was wondering if it is possible to have different RAID configurations on one system/computer. RAID 0, 5, 10, etc...
My guess is you can, but the MoBo or RAID hardware would need to support it, correct? If so, what would this option be called when looking for a MoBo or hardware that would support it?
Also if my MoBo supports RAID can I have a RAID setup, lets say RAID 1, for media and one single drive (non-RAID setup) for the OS. Thanks and if this was answered already, would you mind pointing me in that direction. Thanks

For those who just wanted to know this is what I have (hardware) and wanted to do:
  • MoBo: Manufacture MSI Model: H67MA-E4
  • 2x Sata III
  • 4x Sata II
And I wanted to do this:
  • 1x SSD for the OS
  • 1x RAID 0 setup for software, games, etc
  • 1x RAID 1 for media (photos, music, etc)


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 RainbowSix

RainbowSix

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:04 PM

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:49 PM

I would discourage the use of RAID 0 unless you plan to be constantly working with very large files. The latency often becomes a huge bottleneck, slowing it down to the speed of a single HDD. That's not to mention that if one HDD fails, you lose everything.

My recommended setup is:
SSD
HDD (non-RAID)
RAID 1

Edited by RainbowSix, 12 January 2012 - 09:50 PM.

[ Antec 1200 v3 | Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 rev. 3.1 | AMD Phenom II x6 1090T (overclocked to 4GHz) | Corsair XMS3 4x4GB DDR3 1600 | COOLER MASTER Silent Pro 600W & Visiontek Juice Box 450W | SAMSUNG 470 Series 64GB SSD | WD Caviar Black 640GB & Samsung Spinpoint 2TB HDD | 2x XFX Radeon HD 5770 in Crossfire | SAMSUNG 22X DVDRW | Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit]

CompTIA A+ certified
Stringfellow Electronics

#3 WDDD

WDDD
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:04 PM

Posted 13 January 2012 - 12:42 AM

I would discourage the use of RAID 0 unless you plan to be constantly working with very large files. The latency often becomes a huge bottleneck, slowing it down to the speed of a single HDD. That's not to mention that if one HDD fails, you lose everything.

My recommended setup is:
SSD
HDD (non-RAID)
RAID 1


So RAID 0 is fast, but when using it for smaller data exchange its latency outweighs its benefits. Could you give me an analogy why? Could you think of it as a fast race car that can go fast on the open road with good mpg, but horrible mpg and speed in the city with stop go traffic? Thanks

#4 RainbowSix

RainbowSix

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 08:00 AM

That would be a great analogy, actually. RAID 0 shines when it can read and write in series, such as a large video file (as long as your HDDs are defragmented). There is no real benefit otherwise.
In fact, it might even hurt performance because now you have two HDDs to deal with instead of one.

Edited by RainbowSix, 14 January 2012 - 08:01 AM.

[ Antec 1200 v3 | Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 rev. 3.1 | AMD Phenom II x6 1090T (overclocked to 4GHz) | Corsair XMS3 4x4GB DDR3 1600 | COOLER MASTER Silent Pro 600W & Visiontek Juice Box 450W | SAMSUNG 470 Series 64GB SSD | WD Caviar Black 640GB & Samsung Spinpoint 2TB HDD | 2x XFX Radeon HD 5770 in Crossfire | SAMSUNG 22X DVDRW | Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit]

CompTIA A+ certified
Stringfellow Electronics

#5 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,755 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:01:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:28 AM

I don't know, I use RAID 0 in my personal system, and overall it speeds my system up, and I don't do a lot of large data transfers-it even improves my boot times in games such as bfbc2 and the like. The downside is, like rainbow six mentioned, if you lose one drive you lose everything, but to me thats not a big deal-everything on my primary computer I have saved eleswhere. I havent tried all the RAID versions, but I can say RAID 0 is far better then RAID 1.

As far as running multiple arrays at the same time, in theory It may be possible as long as you have two seperate RAID controllers and enough hard drives-for example, have two hard drives hooked to the motherboard on one raid array, and purchase a dedicated RAID controller card that plugs into a PCI/PCI express slot and two more hard drives to hook onto that.

As far as having a single hard drive, and a seperate RAID array, your motherboard should be able to do that just fine.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#6 rotor123

rotor123

  • Moderator
  • 8,093 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:04:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:56 PM

A really good raid controller can support multiple type of raid on one card.
For example I helped someone out with hardware and install the OS, they configure it, with a HP server.

Two drives striped for boot, then three in raid 5 for data on the one controller.

Might have been this one.
HP Smart Array E200 controller
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantstorage/arraycontrollers/smartarraye200/index.html

Other models on this page support up to 56 drives instead on only 8 drives.

Fortune Cookie says: Fortune not Found: Abort, Retry, Ignore?

Sent from my All-In-One Desktop. Perfect for Internet, Not for heavy usage or gaming however.

How Does a computer get Infected? http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/2520/how-did-i-get-infected/
Forum Rules,    The BC Welcome Guide

167 @ June 2015


#7 Chase_Wheeler

Chase_Wheeler

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:57 PM

As long as the cache is 8mg or over on the RAID 0 it should always be faster, as far as I know. A system with RAID 0 will boot faster than booting with one drive. A lot of those files used for booting are small (this is just an example, not a end all be all statement). The only drawback IMO of RAID 0 is if one of the drives goes out, but I could be wrong. I have always favored RAID 5 though, its a mix between speed and dependability, if you have problems with RAID 5's speed just add another drive and you are good to go.


EDIT: Also to address the OP, it depends on the RAID controller, some have support for it and some don't.

Edited by Chase_Wheeler, 14 January 2012 - 12:58 PM.


#8 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,755 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:01:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 01:07 PM

aaah rotor I didnt know that-I dont have much experience with RAID, I use RAID 1 and RAID 0 all the time, but never together. I usually just use 0 because its what works fastest on my machine.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#9 RainbowSix

RainbowSix

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 07:37 PM

You can find benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2217/1
[ Antec 1200 v3 | Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 rev. 3.1 | AMD Phenom II x6 1090T (overclocked to 4GHz) | Corsair XMS3 4x4GB DDR3 1600 | COOLER MASTER Silent Pro 600W & Visiontek Juice Box 450W | SAMSUNG 470 Series 64GB SSD | WD Caviar Black 640GB & Samsung Spinpoint 2TB HDD | 2x XFX Radeon HD 5770 in Crossfire | SAMSUNG 22X DVDRW | Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit]

CompTIA A+ certified
Stringfellow Electronics

#10 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,755 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:01:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 08:09 PM

Im just telling you what I get performance wise from my own setup using RAID 1 vs RAID 0 and no raid at all, Im noticing anywhere between a 30-35% performance increase using RAID 0 over no Raid, and probably a 40% increase over RAID 1. For a general (not a specific) idea of performance using WEI, with Raid 1 I get a hard disk score of 5.1, with drives running alone, 5.3. with RAID 0, I get 5.9. Now I realize the WEI isnt the most exact way of rating performance, but it does give a nice general outlook of where they sit, Ive run other scores as well. Boot times are also faster with RAID 0, as well as game load times. Once in game, theres no difference seeing as its run off the RAM, so its a moot point there.

Edited by the_patriot11, 14 January 2012 - 08:16 PM.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#11 rotor123

rotor123

  • Moderator
  • 8,093 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:04:04 PM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:06 PM

I agree you go with what you can afford. In Your case striping is better and affordable.
Faster is always better IMO.

This a SATA 2 SSD. As you can see the GeFoce GTS 250 is the weakest link. I have a laptop where the video is worse and the SSD is higher.
This is why I tell people if you can afford it go SSD.
No tweaks beyond the Intel SSD Toolbox either. There are faster SSDs but I wanted Reliable. I'm not rich I added this after the IRS gave me some of my money back if you know what I mean. I used to rest to upgrade my Brother from a P4 to a I7.


[attachment=116947:WEI.jpg]

Best Regards
Roger

Edited by rotor123, 14 January 2012 - 11:12 PM.

Fortune Cookie says: Fortune not Found: Abort, Retry, Ignore?

Sent from my All-In-One Desktop. Perfect for Internet, Not for heavy usage or gaming however.

How Does a computer get Infected? http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/2520/how-did-i-get-infected/
Forum Rules,    The BC Welcome Guide

167 @ June 2015


#12 Enriqe

Enriqe

  • Members
  • 61 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:27 PM

I would discourage the use of RAID 0 unless you plan to be constantly working with very large files. The latency often becomes a huge bottleneck, slowing it down to the speed of a single HDD. That's not to mention that if one HDD fails, you lose everything.

My recommended setup is:
SSD
HDD (non-RAID)
RAID 1


Hello RainbowSix'

Just a quick question for you (sorry to interrupt the thread) ... In the intel matrix storage controller that comes up after bios. When you create a raid-0 it gives you the choice of stripe size.
Do you think a smaller size would help with the bottleneck.
I've been running 2 separate Raid-0's on my system for the past 4 years and I am happy with the performance. but I have noticed on other computers with single HDD's some programs seem to boot up faster than they do on my computer.
even though i have a faster cpu and ram.
just curious.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users