Best RAID Configuration for Gaming on General Discussions Message Board - Page 1

ELITE

AdmiralP posted on May 08, 2012 9:26:36 AM - Report post

In the next couple of weeks I am going to rebuild my gaming rig. I have never run a RAID configuration on any of my builds previously. However, I am considering one this-go-round. From what I have read the two best options appear to be RAID 0 or RAID 5. I believe that many of you run your systems in a RAID configuration to improve performance. Therefore, I am asking the community to provide some advice before I proceed. Also, is there any gain in purchasing a separate RAID controller card vs. the built-in one on the motherboard I intend to purchase? Any help will be great peeps.

That is the smartest thing I have ever heard anyone say about anything.
-P. Griffin

MEMBER

Veronica-Garcia posted on May 08, 2012 9:31:14 AM - Report post

What is RAID? Sorry for asking instead of answering. I'm a little curious.

>>[[ Veronica ]]<<

ELITE

AdmiralP posted on May 08, 2012 9:38:48 AM - Report post

It is a redundant array of independent disks. Here is the wiki: Link.

That is the smartest thing I have ever heard anyone say about anything.
-P. Griffin

PHAT CAT

DABhand posted on May 08, 2012 4:25:14 PM - Report post

RAID 10 is best... it offers speed and stability.. which requires 4 HDD's. 2 for Raid 0 and 2 for raid 1

People would go for 4 HDD's on RAID 0.. ok its great speed, but it carries a huge risk of problems...

People don't understand what RAID settings are, they just read a little bit and think they know it and when something goes wrong they blame hardware rather than themselves for not doing it right.

Raid 0 is fast because its a combined speed of all drives in the array, for instance say 3 drives in raid 0

1st drive reads at 80MB/s
2nd drive reads at 62MB/s
3rd drive reads at 70MB/s

The total speed would be 212MB/s.. the reason is this...

RAID 0 stores data on all 3 drives, but in pieces, one drive will get 1/3 of the data, so will the 2nd and 3rd drive.. not one drive contains 100% of a file. So when you access a file it has to access all 3 drives simultaneously which means all drives speeds are added.

The one bad thing is, if one drive fails, every file in the Array is now dead until that drive doesn't fail, and if its a windows system file it could kill the whole array forcing the user to reinstall windows etc..

Now RAID 10, offers both speed and reliability, but as said requires at least 4 drives to do so..

2 in RAID 0 for the speed
2 in RAID 1 for the reliability

Reliability because the RAID 1 array is a photocopy essentially of their tied drive in the RAID 0 array, so if one of the drives fail the data is recopied back into the array on the disc that failed. So essentially it will never fail, well 99% of the time it won't :P

Oh and Don't forget some tuts on ASM and defeating DMA

Clicky Here for them

ELITE

AdmiralP posted on May 08, 2012 6:35:15 PM - Report post

Is the speed increase worthwhile? That seems like a costly configuration, at least with the amount of HDD capacity I hope to retain. At present I run with four HDD's: one 250GB for my OS; one 1TB for my games; one 1TB for music, movies, pictures, etc.; & one 1TB for backup. At present my HDD for games is almost maxed out (16G remaining... and a handful of my games are on my OS drive). Granted, I could remove some of the games, but I like having access to the older games for when I am feeling a little nostalgic. In order to run a RAID configuration in RAID 10, it sounds like I would want four 3TB HDD's. That pushes the rig in an expense direction I do not know if I am willing to go with. Plus I have read in a couple of places that RAID configurations do not fair well on the 1TB and larger HDD's. Will a RAID 10 (or any RAID) configuration increase FPS or will it simply improve load times?

That is the smartest thing I have ever heard anyone say about anything.
-P. Griffin

EXECUTOR

Lord Vader posted on May 08, 2012 8:54:35 PM - Report post

quote:

originally posted by DABhand

RAID 10 is best... it offers speed and stability.. which requires 4 HDD's. 2 for Raid 0 and 2 for raid 1

People would go for 4 HDD's on RAID 0.. ok its great speed, but it carries a huge risk of problems...

People don't understand what RAID settings are, they just read a little bit and think they know it and when something goes wrong they blame hardware rather than themselves for not doing it right.

Raid 0 is fast because its a combined speed of all drives in the array, for instance say 3 drives in raid 0

1st drive reads at 80MB/s
2nd drive reads at 62MB/s
3rd drive reads at 70MB/s

The total speed would be 212MB/s.. the reason is this...

RAID 0 stores data on all 3 drives, but in pieces, one drive will get 1/3 of the data, so will the 2nd and 3rd drive.. not one drive contains 100% of a file. So when you access a file it has to access all 3 drives simultaneously which means all drives speeds are added.

The one bad thing is, if one drive fails, every file in the Array is now dead until that drive doesn't fail, and if its a windows system file it could kill the whole array forcing the user to reinstall windows etc..

Now RAID 10, offers both speed and reliability, but as said requires at least 4 drives to do so..

2 in RAID 0 for the speed
2 in RAID 1 for the reliability

Reliability because the RAID 1 array is a photocopy essentially of their tied drive in the RAID 0 array, so if one of the drives fail the data is recopied back into the array on the disc that failed. So essentially it will never fail, well 99% of the time it won't :P

i posted this in another thread with a similar theme but nobody responded...so here i am again.

my limited understanding of RAID was hinting towards a RAID 10 being the best balance between speed and reliability. but here's what i really want to know:

in terms of actual performance would RAID 10 be faster than an SSD?

would RAID 10 be faster than a Veloci-Raptor HDD?

which of the 3 would be the fastest?

"Do you know the difference between education and experience? Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't"

ELITE

AdmiralP posted on May 08, 2012 9:40:56 PM - Report post

quote:

originally posted by saurabhfzd

quote:

originally posted by DABhand

RAID 10 is best... it offers speed and stability.. which requires 4 HDD's. 2 for Raid 0 and 2 for raid 1

People would go for 4 HDD's on RAID 0.. ok its great speed, but it carries a huge risk of problems...

People don't understand what RAID settings are, they just read a little bit and think they know it and when something goes wrong they blame hardware rather than themselves for not doing it right.

Raid 0 is fast because its a combined speed of all drives in the array, for instance say 3 drives in raid 0

1st drive reads at 80MB/s
2nd drive reads at 62MB/s
3rd drive reads at 70MB/s

The total speed would be 212MB/s.. the reason is this...

RAID 0 stores data on all 3 drives, but in pieces, one drive will get 1/3 of the data, so will the 2nd and 3rd drive.. not one drive contains 100% of a file. So when you access a file it has to access all 3 drives simultaneously which means all drives speeds are added.

The one bad thing is, if one drive fails, every file in the Array is now dead until that drive doesn't fail, and if its a windows system file it could kill the whole array forcing the user to reinstall windows etc..

Now RAID 10, offers both speed and reliability, but as said requires at least 4 drives to do so..

2 in RAID 0 for the speed
2 in RAID 1 for the reliability

Reliability because the RAID 1 array is a photocopy essentially of their tied drive in the RAID 0 array, so if one of the drives fail the data is recopied back into the array on the disc that failed. So essentially it will never fail, well 99% of the time it won't :P

i posted this in another thread with a similar theme but nobody responded...so here i am again.

my limited understanding of RAID was hinting towards a RAID 10 being the best balance between speed and reliability. but here's what i really want to know:

in terms of actual performance would RAID 10 be faster than an SSD?

would RAID 10 be faster than a Veloci-Raptor HDD?

which of the 3 would be the fastest?

Sorry to hijack your topic saurabhfzd. I ran a search of the boards and was unable to find anything... apparently I just did not look hard enough.

That is the smartest thing I have ever heard anyone say about anything.
-P. Griffin

EXECUTOR

Lord Vader posted on May 08, 2012 10:29:05 PM - Report post

quote:

originally posted by The Admiral

quote:

originally posted by saurabhfzd

quote:

originally posted by DABhand

RAID 10 is best... it offers speed and stability.. which requires 4 HDD's. 2 for Raid 0 and 2 for raid 1

People would go for 4 HDD's on RAID 0.. ok its great speed, but it carries a huge risk of problems...

People don't understand what RAID settings are, they just read a little bit and think they know it and when something goes wrong they blame hardware rather than themselves for not doing it right.

Raid 0 is fast because its a combined speed of all drives in the array, for instance say 3 drives in raid 0

1st drive reads at 80MB/s
2nd drive reads at 62MB/s
3rd drive reads at 70MB/s

The total speed would be 212MB/s.. the reason is this...

RAID 0 stores data on all 3 drives, but in pieces, one drive will get 1/3 of the data, so will the 2nd and 3rd drive.. not one drive contains 100% of a file. So when you access a file it has to access all 3 drives simultaneously which means all drives speeds are added.

The one bad thing is, if one drive fails, every file in the Array is now dead until that drive doesn't fail, and if its a windows system file it could kill the whole array forcing the user to reinstall windows etc..

Now RAID 10, offers both speed and reliability, but as said requires at least 4 drives to do so..

2 in RAID 0 for the speed
2 in RAID 1 for the reliability

Reliability because the RAID 1 array is a photocopy essentially of their tied drive in the RAID 0 array, so if one of the drives fail the data is recopied back into the array on the disc that failed. So essentially it will never fail, well 99% of the time it won't :P

i posted this in another thread with a similar theme but nobody responded...so here i am again.

my limited understanding of RAID was hinting towards a RAID 10 being the best balance between speed and reliability. but here's what i really want to know:

in terms of actual performance would RAID 10 be faster than an SSD?

would RAID 10 be faster than a Veloci-Raptor HDD?

which of the 3 would be the fastest?

Sorry to hijack your topic saurabhfzd. I ran a search of the boards and was unable to find anything... apparently I just did not look hard enough.

wasn't exactly the same but similar as in relating to HDDs.
Link

u're not hijacking my topic...if anything i'm hijacking urs

...my question still remains un-answered.

"Do you know the difference between education and experience? Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't"