Dual Disk SATA

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

There is always the "Placebo Effect" with many PC operations. First &

foremost is the "Clean Install = Fast", which is mostly due to a platform

which is not fully loaded. But there is a whole group of Windows users

who follow a regular schedule of Format & Start over. RAID is just one

setup that "most" desktop users do not need - the same for setting up &

using Dynamic volumes. If the OP believes he gets a appreciable return

using RAID-0 then that's fine, but he shouldn't globally recommend it to

NG readers implying everyone will get an enormous performance gain.

Anyone can post a favorite Tweak or Setup but should at the least take

the time to mention any downside or risk with it.

 

I have a system with 5 SATA drives and a couple of different controllers.

I use both internal and external drives. Using DiskSpeed32, I measure an

average throughput of ~82 Megabytes-per-Sec on all of them. This is

more than enough speed.

 

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

news:%23SArZNNwIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> 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

>>

>>

>

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Dual Disk SATA

 

On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:27:50 -0400, "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> 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), software RAID 0 but doesn't offer very much except for a lot of

> potential risk (as Ken explained)!

 

 

My personal experience was with hardware RAID. It provided no

perceptible increase in performance.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup