Jump to content

Dual Disk SATA

Guest Spin

By Guest Spin
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Spin

Guest Spin

Posted
Posted

Gurus,

 

On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by running

applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA is serial

in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes have to

come through the same controller, then perhaps running applications off of

the second SATA disk might actually result in a DECREASE in total system

performance?

 

--

Spin

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest Timothy Daniels

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

"Spin" wrote:

> Gurus,

 

The hard drive ghurus are over in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage .

 

*TimDaniels*

Guest DL

Guest DL

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

There are a number of hw items to be taken into consideration if seeking

performance, not just the drives

 

"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA

> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes

> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> DECREASE in total system performance?

>

> --

> Spin

Guest smlunatick

Guest smlunatick

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

On May 26, 12:59 pm, "Spin" <S...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by running

> applications off of the second SATA disk?  I understand that SATA is serial

> in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes have to

> come through the same controller, then perhaps running applications off of

> the second SATA disk might actually result in a DECREASE in total system

> performance?

>

> --

> Spin

 

You need to understand the way SATA drives are handled. Each drive is

directly connected to a SATA port on the motherboard. They do not

connect in a Master/Slave set up on the same cable.

Guest wisdomkiller & pain

Guest wisdomkiller & pain

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Spin wrote:

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> running

> applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA is

> serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes

> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> DECREASE in total system performance?

>

SATA interface speed is 1.5 or 3 GB/sec, harddrives deliver 50-70MB/sec. The

drive will be the bottleneck, and two drives (in particular with the swap

partition and personal files on the 2nd one, or even raid0/stripe) can

enhance performance somehow. There is no sense in creating a separate

partition for the swapfile on the first drive, since that would force

excessive head movements across partitions.

Guest HeyBub

Guest HeyBub

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Spin wrote:

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that

> SATA is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads

> and writes have to come through the same controller, then perhaps

> running applications off of the second SATA disk might actually

> result in a DECREASE in total system performance?

 

Any inefficiencies or conflicts within the controller are insignificant and

ridiculously small compared to disk access time.

 

There's one technique, for example, that loads a program in disk-location

order then sorts the various pieces out in RAM.

 

MUCH faster than flopping all over the drive to load the pieces in logical

order to begin with.

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

 

Ramone

 

"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA

> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes

> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> DECREASE in total system performance?

>

> --

> Spin

Guest Telstar

Guest Telstar

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

 

"Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OaJ$Oc3vIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

 

 

Yes it is. Just be aware that if either drive fails, all data is lost.

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

If data is backed up like it should be, there's nothing to worry about.

 

Ramone

 

"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message

news:O%23nlWu3vIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OaJ$Oc3vIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

>

>

> Yes it is. Just be aware that if either drive fails, all data is lost.

>

>

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:25:50 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>

wrote:

> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

 

 

It produces very little additional performance, but greatly increases

the risk to your data, since if any drive in a stripe is lost, all the

data on the stripe is lost.

 

I recommend against it.

 

 

 

> "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

> news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

> > Gurus,

> >

> > On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> > running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA

> > is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes

> > have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> > applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> > DECREASE in total system performance?

> >

> > --

> > Spin

>

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Guest Lil' Dave

Guest Lil' Dave

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA

> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes

> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> DECREASE in total system performance?

>

> --

> Spin

 

Can safely say that when I image my XP partition, and save that image to a

partition on same hard drive it is relatively slow. Slower by about a 1/3

more time as opposed to when I save the image file to another hard drive.

Both, are identical SATAs.

--

Dave

Guest Brian Cryer

Guest Brian Cryer

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

> Gurus,

>

> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA

> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes

> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> DECREASE in total system performance?

 

Just incase some of the answers arent clear: In general adding a second SATA

disk will never decrease your total system performance. Depending on how you

use it you may well be able to increase total system performance.

--

Brian Cryer

http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Why did my hard disk performance double? Sorry Ken but you are wrong on the

performance issue. And like I said if data is backed up properly why worry?

There is a much higher risk of losing data to a Windows failure than a hard

drive failure. Yes a stripe setup does increase the risk but the trade off

in performance increase is most definitely worth it. The only way I might

not do it is in a business environment.

 

Ramone

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:lhim34dinh4pc1roqcs92s7e61906i56lb@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:25:50 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

>

>

> It produces very little additional performance, but greatly increases

> the risk to your data, since if any drive in a stripe is lost, all the

> data on the stripe is lost.

>

> I recommend against it.

>

>

>

>

>> "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

>> news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

>> > Gurus,

>> >

>> > On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

>> > running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that

>> > SATA

>> > is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and

>> > writes

>> > have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

>> > applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

>> > DECREASE in total system performance?

>> >

>> > --

>> > Spin

>>

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:32:26 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>

wrote:

> Why did my hard disk performance double? Sorry Ken but you are wrong on the

> performance issue.

 

 

That's your opinion. I disagree. I've tried RAID0 here and I saw no

discernable performance improvement at all. I know many others who

report the same thing.

 

I don't know why your "hard disk performance" doubled, but I suspect

that you simply didn't measure it carefully (if at all) and what you

report is just wishful thinking.

 

> And like I said if data is backed up properly why worry?

 

 

I'm entirely with you regarding backup. That's a necessity whether or

not you use RAID0. However, there is always a risk of backups not

restoring properly, getting lost, etc. Having backups is great;

relying on them to always be there working properly when you need them

is not so great.

 

And restoring from a backup takes time, and there can be a cost

associated with that too.

 

> There is a much higher risk of losing data to a Windows failure than a hard

> drive failure.

 

 

I don't agree, but it doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant. The

point is simply that RAID0 increases the risk. And since it increases

risk for little or no benefit, it's not worth taking the risk.

 

 

> Yes a stripe setup does increase the risk but the trade off

> in performance increase is most definitely worth it.

 

 

Once again, I disagree. The performance increase is somewhere between

tiny and non-existent. That's why I took it off my computer here.

 

 

> The only way I might

> not do it is in a business environment.

>

> Ramone

>

> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

> news:lhim34dinh4pc1roqcs92s7e61906i56lb@4ax.com...

> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:25:50 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>

> > wrote:

> >

> >> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

> >

> >

> > It produces very little additional performance, but greatly increases

> > the risk to your data, since if any drive in a stripe is lost, all the

> > data on the stripe is lost.

> >

> > I recommend against it.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >> "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

> >> news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

> >> > Gurus,

> >> >

> >> > On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

> >> > running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that

> >> > SATA

> >> > is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and

> >> > writes

> >> > have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

> >> > applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

> >> > DECREASE in total system performance?

> >> >

> >> > --

> >> > Spin

> >>

> >

> > --

> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

I don't know why performance did not double for you or anyone else. Maybe

it's due to hardware issues. But I can tell you for a fact that my stripe

setup on two different machines did factually double. I'm not trying to be

difficult, I'm just giving my opinion based on my experience. Maybe you

didnot use a hardware based raid?

 

Ramone

 

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:hqno345sqbm14s5lulri1vapripr8k5ae4@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:32:26 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>> Why did my hard disk performance double? Sorry Ken but you are wrong on

>> the

>> performance issue.

>

>

> That's your opinion. I disagree. I've tried RAID0 here and I saw no

> discernable performance improvement at all. I know many others who

> report the same thing.

>

> I don't know why your "hard disk performance" doubled, but I suspect

> that you simply didn't measure it carefully (if at all) and what you

> report is just wishful thinking.

>

>

>> And like I said if data is backed up properly why worry?

>

>

> I'm entirely with you regarding backup. That's a necessity whether or

> not you use RAID0. However, there is always a risk of backups not

> restoring properly, getting lost, etc. Having backups is great;

> relying on them to always be there working properly when you need them

> is not so great.

>

> And restoring from a backup takes time, and there can be a cost

> associated with that too.

>

>

>> There is a much higher risk of losing data to a Windows failure than a

>> hard

>> drive failure.

>

>

> I don't agree, but it doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant. The

> point is simply that RAID0 increases the risk. And since it increases

> risk for little or no benefit, it's not worth taking the risk.

>

>

>

>> Yes a stripe setup does increase the risk but the trade off

>> in performance increase is most definitely worth it.

>

>

> Once again, I disagree. The performance increase is somewhere between

> tiny and non-existent. That's why I took it off my computer here.

>

>

>

>> The only way I might

>> not do it is in a business environment.

>>

>> Ramone

>>

>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

>> news:lhim34dinh4pc1roqcs92s7e61906i56lb@4ax.com...

>> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:25:50 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>

>> > wrote:

>> >

>> >> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.

>> >

>> >

>> > It produces very little additional performance, but greatly increases

>> > the risk to your data, since if any drive in a stripe is lost, all the

>> > data on the stripe is lost.

>> >

>> > I recommend against it.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >> "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message

>> >> news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...

>> >> > Gurus,

>> >> >

>> >> > On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by

>> >> > running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that

>> >> > SATA

>> >> > is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and

>> >> > writes

>> >> > have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running

>> >> > applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a

>> >> > DECREASE in total system performance?

>> >> >

>> >> > --

>> >> > Spin

>> >>

>> >

>> > --

>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>>

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Guest Spin

Guest Spin

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

"Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OwERZBEwIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>I don't know why performance did not double for you or anyone else. Maybe

>it's due to hardware issues. But I can tell you for a fact that my stripe

>setup on two different machines did factually double. I'm not trying to be

>difficult, I'm just giving my opinion based on my experience. Maybe you

>didnot use a hardware based raid?

 

how did you measure it - using what tool?

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:11:08 -0400, "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote:

> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OwERZBEwIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> >I don't know why performance did not double for you or anyone else. Maybe

> >it's due to hardware issues. But I can tell you for a fact that my stripe

> >setup on two different machines did factually double. I'm not trying to be

> >difficult, I'm just giving my opinion based on my experience. Maybe you

> >didnot use a hardware based raid?

>

> how did you measure it - using what tool?

 

 

Took the words out of my mouth!

 

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the raid 0.

HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I went from 55-65

mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

 

Ramone

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:licp34hiosfpu4qt2mv3d834umb86lkr81@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:11:08 -0400, "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote:

>

>> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:OwERZBEwIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> >I don't know why performance did not double for you or anyone else.

>> >Maybe

>> >it's due to hardware issues. But I can tell you for a fact that my

>> >stripe

>> >setup on two different machines did factually double. I'm not trying to

>> >be

>> >difficult, I'm just giving my opinion based on my experience. Maybe you

>> >didnot use a hardware based raid?

>>

>> how did you measure it - using what tool?

>

>

> Took the words out of my mouth!

>

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Guest Spin

Guest Spin

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

"Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the raid 0.

>HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I went from 55-65

>mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>

> Ramone

 

So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles performance (as

you shown), software RAID 0 but doesn't offer very much except for a lot of

potential risk (as Ken explained)!

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest John John (MVP)

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Spin wrote:

> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

>> I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the

>> raid 0. HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I

>> went from 55-65 mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>>

>> Ramone

>

>

> So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles performance

> (as you shown),

 

That is a very deceptive statement. Equating burst speed increases with

actual performance increases is misleading, that is just not an accurate

measure of performance! Most RAID-0 performance increases can usually

be measured in the range of less that 5%.

 

John

Guest Bob I

Guest Bob I

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

 

 

John John (MVP) wrote:

> Spin wrote:

>

>> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the

>>> raid 0. HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I

>>> went from 55-65 mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>>>

>>> Ramone

>>

>>

>>

>> So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles

>> performance (as you shown),

>

>

> That is a very deceptive statement. Equating burst speed increases with

> actual performance increases is misleading, that is just not an accurate

> measure of performance! Most RAID-0 performance increases can usually

> be measured in the range of less that 5%.

>

> John

 

Actually the Burst rate increase would not be much better, it would be

the sustained reads and writes that benefit from having the RAID 0. If

you are doing say video editing then yes a gain would be seen. But

little files that don't exceed the the onboard cache would maybe even

drop slightly from overhead on the two drives.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969&p=4

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Those numbers are not for burst speed they are for average transfer speeds.

The burst speeds are actually much higher but I pay no attention to those

numbers.

 

Ramone

 

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:e4YxBLMwIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Spin wrote:

>

>> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the raid

>>> 0. HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I went from

>>> 55-65 mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>>>

>>> Ramone

>>

>>

>> So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles performance

>> (as you shown),

>

> That is a very deceptive statement. Equating burst speed increases with

> actual performance increases is misleading, that is just not an accurate

> measure of performance! Most RAID-0 performance increases can usually be

> measured in the range of less that 5%.

>

> John

Guest Ramone

Guest Ramone

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Those numbers are for average transfer rates, not burst speed. I pay no

attention to burst speed numbers.

 

Ramone

 

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:e4YxBLMwIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Spin wrote:

>

>> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the raid

>>> 0. HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I went from

>>> 55-65 mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>>>

>>> Ramone

>>

>>

>> So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles performance

>> (as you shown),

>

> That is a very deceptive statement. Equating burst speed increases with

> actual performance increases is misleading, that is just not an accurate

> measure of performance! Most RAID-0 performance increases can usually be

> measured in the range of less that 5%.

>

> John

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest John John (MVP)

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

Bob I wrote:

>

>

> John John (MVP) wrote:

>

>> Spin wrote:

>>

>>> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>> I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the

>>>> raid 0. HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I

>>>> went from 55-65 mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>>>>

>>>> Ramone

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles

>>> performance (as you shown),

>>

>>

>>

>> That is a very deceptive statement. Equating burst speed increases

>> with actual performance increases is misleading, that is just not an

>> accurate measure of performance! Most RAID-0 performance increases

>> can usually be measured in the range of less that 5%.

>>

>> John

>

>

> Actually the Burst rate increase would not be much better, it would be

> the sustained reads and writes that benefit from having the RAID 0. If

> you are doing say video editing then yes a gain would be seen. But

> little files that don't exceed the the onboard cache would maybe even

> drop slightly from overhead on the two drives.

> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969&p=4

 

Thanks for clearing that up, Bob. As you say, for video editing and the

likes there may be real gains but for most other things the difference

is negligible. The conclusion page of the same article pretty well sums

it up:

 

If it is not obvious by now, RAID 0 will provide outstanding results in

synthetic benchmarks but really does nothing in actual applications. We

should probably clarify that statement in detail. Utilizing the best

performing drives in RAID 0 is the setup to have if you are looking to

publish top benchmark scores with results in PCMark05 improving by 25%

as an example. That same setup will provide you with at best minimal

performance improvements in most applications, or sometimes no

difference at all.

 

[end qoute]

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969&p=9

 

And from another article on the same site:

 

[Qoute]

If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there

is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The

real world performance increases are negligible at best and the

reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between

failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.

 

(...)

 

Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but

they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop

performance. That's just the cold hard truth.

 

[end quote]

 

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2101

 

Claims of performance increases in the 100% range are specious or

dubious to say the least!

 

John

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest John John (MVP)

Posted
Posted

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

It still makes little difference in the real world, these benchmark

numbers do not translate into real and equal performance gains, at best

(unless you work with really large files) the gains won't amount to

anything much more than a couple of percentage points. For most users

RAID-0 on the desktop is just not worth the added overhead and decreased

reliability.

 

John

 

Ramone wrote:

> Those numbers are for average transfer rates, not burst speed. I pay no

> attention to burst speed numbers.

>

> Ramone

>

> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

> news:e4YxBLMwIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

>> Spin wrote:

>>

>>> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:%23b$JxXGwIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>> I used 3 different benchmarks, both before and after setting up the

>>>> raid 0. HD Tune, HD Sentinel, and PCPitstop online test. On all 3 I

>>>> went from 55-65 mb/sec transfer rate to 105-125 mb/sec transfer rate.

>>>>

>>>> Ramone

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> So moral of the story is with SATA, hardware RAID 0 doubles

>>> performance (as you shown),

>>

>>

>> That is a very deceptive statement. Equating burst speed increases

>> with actual performance increases is misleading, that is just not an

>> accurate measure of performance! Most RAID-0 performance increases

>> can usually be measured in the range of less that 5%.

>>

>> John

>

>

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...