RAID-0 Performance Under Windows 7 part 1

halo200

Hi

Im considering installing Windows 7, well technically its still downloading from Microsoft but its getting there so while its going I was just curious how it performs on a RAID-0 system, right now I have 2x 500GB Seagate Drives at 7200rpm and was wondering if A) The increase is speed is definatly noticable and B) what the Vista rating is for having 2x 7200rpm Drives in there under Vista its a 5.9.

Also the RAID controller is hardware based and setup through BIOS on my P5Q-PRO, I didnt have to install the drivers so am I correct to assume the same on Windows 7

Thanks Guys

Jacee

I had the same set up with Vista Ultimate. It continually crashed on me and it had to keep repairing itself. I finally got tired of that arraingement and pulled the plug on one of the 500GB hard drives. (disabled it in BIOS)

If this has worked for you with Vista, it may also work just fine with Win7.

digitalrurouni

�� Quote: Originally Posted by halo200

Hi

Im considering installing Windows 7, well technically its still downloading from Microsoft but its getting there so while its going I was just curious how it performs on a RAID-0 system, right now I have 2x 500GB Seagate Drives at 7200rpm and was wondering if A) The increase is speed is definatly noticable and B) what the Vista rating is for having 2x 7200rpm Drives in there under Vista its a 5.9.

Also the RAID controller is hardware based and setup through BIOS on my P5Q-PRO, I didnt have to install the drivers so am I correct to assume the same on Windows 7

Thanks Guys

Hi first let me welcome you to SF.
win7 overall is faster than vista. I dont have raid experience in vista so I have no comparison the drivers for my raid were installed by default. It was painless.

Hope this gives you some reassurance and thanks for filling out your system specs it really helps.

Hope this helped somewhat and ask questions we all learn

Ken

halo200

I have a raid 0 setup with raptors...what is the question you are trying to ask?

digitalrurouni

Just finished installing 7 and on the RAID 0 it boots so much faster than Vista did, also like Vista it automatically picked up the drive no problem on the Raid. I find it funny how my scores have gone up, like my CPU was at 5.7 in Vista and then it went up to 6.5 in 7 and then up to 7.0 after an overclock.

Thanks Guys

rook

�� Quote: Originally Posted by halo200

Just finished installing 7 and on the RAID 0 it boots so much faster than Vista did, also like Vista it automatically picked up the drive no problem on the Raid. I find it funny how my scores have gone up, like my CPU was at 5.7 in Vista and then it went up to 6.5 in 7 and then up to 7.0 after an overclock.

Thanks Guys

I knew you wouldn't have a problem. The WEI upgrade is just Bill G's way of saying thank you for installing our newest. Lots of people find their WEI varying with no changes at all

Glad it wirked so easily

Ken

DJG

I think the WEI scores are a better reflection now...there is no way that my vid cards would have had a 6.6 considering they are 285s and quite overclocked. 7.4 all around except for my hard drive which is at 5.9 sounds more correct to me.

Guest

If this helps - I've been running Win 7 on a raid 0 set-up for a couple of weeks now with no problems. I just updated to build 7229 with no issues to report!

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by halo200

...Also the RAID controller is hardware based and setup through BIOS on my P5Q-PRO...

That is still software RAID. Hardware RAID has it's own CPU and memory. Hardware RAID is expensive.

5.9 is Win7 WEI peak for non-SSD drives (I am advised).

In Vista, the WEI scale peaked at 5.9. Peaks at 7.9 in Win7. Navy math= Your score dropped from .966 to .822 (5.7/5.9 vs 6.5/7.9)

I can't imagine ever dropping RAID0 for my OS without replacing it with SSD. I even ran 4 WD 250's in RAID0 for a while. Internet throughput was absolutely blazing on that config.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Antman

That is still software RAID. Hardware RAID has it's own CPU and memory. Hardware RAID is expensive.

Antman, I would classify on-board RAID such as implemented by the ICH10R chipset as hardware based. They run off their own firmware and processing capacity and do not use the system CPU. Not as powerful as a dedicated outboard PCI-E card controller, sure, but hardware based never-the-less, and far preferable to a RAID set up in the Windows Disk Manager, which is what I would term a software-based RAID. Not to mention almost free .

Unless I misinterpreted your post? Or are we getting into shades of grey here ?

itznfb

I have a Highpoint RocketRAID 2300 controller. It is software RAID. I am planning on acquiring a Highpoint RocketRAID 3320 (or similar, for RAID6 on 8 drives). It is hardware RAID.

If the controller is in the southbridge, it is software RAID. A software layer sits above the disk device drivers and provides an abstraction layer between the logical drives and physical drives.

Where exactly do you think the processor is located for the ICH10R chipset?

DJG

�� Quote: Originally Posted by DJG

They run off their own firmware and processing capacity and do not use the system CPU.

^^ this is 100% incorrect.

as for issues in win7/vista. i haven't seen any. i've used about 15 different hardware cards, and ICH7R-10R. i haven't used the nvidia raid chipset though.

DJG

Antman, I stand corrected .

I got fooled by having BIOS options at boot time and being able to configure the RAID array there. So although there is some level of hardware control, the low level RAID functions are actually performed by the driver loaded in the OS. I always thought there was some amount of logic / microprocessor in the chipset that performed the lower level RAID functions while the OS ran the management / configuration options side.

I doublechecked and saw that there IS CPU activity while running HDTune on the ICH10R array, even though HDTune reports -1.0 . So I'm actually quite impressed I'm getting ~450MBs from that RAID 0 from 4x Seagate 1.5TB, which is a better than the 400MBs I get from my Areca 1220 that has an Intel IOP333 and 6x Seagate 500GB, same series. The different platter configuration may play some part there though.

Thanks for the new insights!

itznfb

�� Quote: Originally Posted by DJG

...Thanks for the new insights!

Your challenge did motivate me to a bit of reading. It seems that a new terminology has emerged to address advances in technology. MOBO RAID can be labeled Firmware/Driver RAID. Wikipedia made me wikilaugh at the term "fake RAID" - because there are those that consider RAID0 as not being true RAID due to its lack of fault tolerance. I count myself among that number. I remain old school, nonetheless - it is either soft or hard, 0 or 1.

Sweet website. An Eritrean friend of mine has introduced me to roasting my own coffee over an open flame, one pan at a time.

swarfega

Thanks! I do use a small programable roaster for my roasting. You may want to check this place out:

Home Coffee Roasting Supplies - Sweet Maria's

So, maybe we can have as generic (RAID) flavors:

TRAID - True RAID (with its own CPU),
HARAID - Half-A$$ed RAID (Mobo-hardware-assisted), and
FRAID - Fake RAID (basic drives RAIDed by the OS)

They do have a point with RAID 0. Handy as it is, there's no redundancy to be found in that (non) Redundant Array. So what could we call it??? OTOH, RAID 0 would seem to imply Zero Redundancy. Ahh, the eternal semantical discussions .

DJG

�� Quote: Originally Posted by DJG

...RAID 0 would seem to imply Zero Redundancy...

Since a single drive also offers null redundancy, I recommend RAID0 for all OS installs that will support it. Now for the evil reveal -

I get paid to fix things.

And, and thank you so much for showing me home roasting equipment?!? Did I mention that we have a one-year old? Did I mention that I am shoppping for a 8 port RAID card? Now I have to figure out out to budget for those two completely unnecessary things now that I am about to spend $1000 on a roaster.

Guest

technically RAID0 offers negative redundancy since it increases your risk of fault/failure x2. i still recommend using it though...
1. because its sweet
2. because you should be backing up your data anyway

Guest

One piece of advice I have would be to install the drivers by the manufacturer of the motherboard rather than use the ones installed by microsoft. At least in my case I noticed improved stability.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Antman

Since a single drive also offers null redundancy, I recommend RAID0 for all OS installs that will support it. Now for the evil reveal -

I get paid to fix things.

And, and thank you so much for showing me home roasting equipment?!? Did I mention that we have a one-year old? Did I mention that I am shoppping for a 8 port RAID card? Now I have to figure out out to budget for those two completely unnecessary things now that I am about to spend $1000 on a roaster.

Always glad to help! Do check out the Areca boards in your shopping spree.

I should add, I've been running my system partition on RAID 0 for quite a while in several incarnations of my workstation, and have never had a disater. I have had the array go into check mode after a couple of BSODs, but nothing unrecoverable, and no problems even after most of the BSODs I've incurred while tweaking my overclocking. And of course there are those handy backup images - just in case.

So you're getting no money from me, pal (knock on silicon). But I will help you spend it .

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by DJG

So you're getting no money from me, pal (knock on silicon). But I will help you spend it.

Ain't it funny, a fool and his money, always seem to find those real good friends
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhQJE7AUdxI"]YouTube - Robin Trower - Too Rolling Stoned - 1975[/ame]

DJG

Saw Procol Harum in Orlando, ca. 1971. I remember doing this funny blue pill just before driving to it from Melbourne, by myself. Kind-of remember the concert, then I recollect getting in the car to drive back, and the next I know I'm getting off the car at home an hour later ...

Yes I do believe guardian angels exist.

And before anybody asks, no I did not have any red pills, just the blue ...

DJG

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWULu5_nXI&feature=related"]YouTube - Procol Harum - A whiter shade of pale 1967[/ame]

A bluer shade of pale, I would suppose. Your tale does remind me of sleeping through a Genesis concert circa 1977.

saverio

LOL!

saverio

I've got an asus P5Q Deluxe mobo and have been using the onboard IHC10R as is on your board without any problems whatsoever.

The only issue I've had is that when I flashed the bios to a newer one it wiped out the raid array - or rather I just couldn't get it to boot, but the system image of the Installation that I saved only minutes before saved my life!

In fact digressing a little, I've found backing up the computer by means of Image Backup and easy transfer files have always served me better than windows backup - it seems to do absolutely bugger all.

I lost a whole folder of data a couple of months ago, and I called up a backup (made two days prior) and it couldn't do anything

I used RECUVA freeware in the end to scour the drive and recover the deleted files.

As Antman says though, I would look to a dedicated controller card first if you can but my Adaptec 1220SA wouldn't work with 7 as the vista drivers weren't recognised. So I had to use onboard. I suppose no mfr is going to stick their neck out until 7 goes public release.

The other benefits of the controller card, other than the obvious, is that it does free up all those SATA ports for optical drives and scratch disks etc.

I'm in a quandry over disk mananagement at the moment.

Antipoopydick

�� Quote: Originally Posted by saverio

...my Adaptec 1220SA wouldn't work with 7 as the vista drivers weren't recognised. So I had to use onboard...

Did you attempt to force the driver? From device manager, navigate to driver INF/SYS folder, select a file and install? Just curious. I did this with my HP2300 and have no issues.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by saverio

...I'm in a quandry over disk mananagement at the moment.

Please expound.

DJG

Antman, I didn't know I could 'force the drivers' on installation! - this is news indeed!
As it is, I'm looking at a 4 channel controller card for the future with onboard memory, but i'll wait until 7 is commercially available for that.

As for the quandry, if you check out this thread, it will explain all. It's good to know RTm is due soon as it gives me a good reason to have another go at installation and play with another configuration. I was perhaps thinking of having another OS such as linux as well, but that would eliminate the raid config.

Guest

Anyone know the cap on HDD for the OS.

Guest

NTFS:

You can use 64KB clusters to achieve a 256TB volume (any volumes larger than 2TB must be dynamic, not basic).

Max file size is limited only by the size of the volume (up to 256 TB).

Maximum files per volume is 4,294,967,295

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by saverio

Antman, I didn't know I could 'force the drivers' on installation! - this is news indeed!
As it is, I'm looking at a 4 channel controller card for the future with onboard memory, but i'll wait until 7 is commercially available for that.

...

You might want to check out the offerings from Areca

Areca Technology Corporation

BTW, I'm running my system on a RAID 0 disk on the ICH10R and works great! Never had a problem because of flashing the BIOS either.

Guest

Also, after two+ years with a 4-port card, I am wishing that I had gone with an 8-port. Moreso, I actually want to setup a 16 disk mirrored RAID6.

To be honest, I think I would prefer to archive all of my video to flash cards. I will have to read up on the shelf-life of unpowered flash and recoverability.

chev65

Well I read this thread hoping to learn more about RAID0 but I didn't learn anything new about it really. I'm going tri GSkill falcon's SSD's which is the most my onboard RAID can handle without slowing down and that will be it for me. Plenty fast without the need for a RAID card.

But I have to say that those coffee bean roasters are great!

pparks1

�� Quote: Originally Posted by chev65

Well I read this thread hoping to learn more about RAID0 but I didn't learn anything new about it really...

This site is not the best source. DJG has a significant amount of hands-on time in many real-world applications of the strategy that is RAID0.

I did run a four disk RAID0 volume for about a year with an XP install. The biggest impact I experienced was in download throughput - major jump in speed. Rendering was also sweetened.

monstron

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Antman

Since a single drive also offers null redundancy, I recommend RAID0 for all OS installs that will support it.

Well, I understand that a single drive offers no redundancy, I don't recommend RAID 0 stripes to run an OS from, for the obvious reason that when you have 2 physical disks, you have a greater liklihood of a disk failure...and we all know with a RAID 0 stripe that if you lose 1 disk you lose all of the data.

Let's assume a user has 2 hard drives. Hard drive A and Hard Drive B. Let's say that Hard Drive A lasts for 36 months without a single incident. Let's say that drive B dies after 4 months. In this example, had the user only had the OS on drive A, it would have theoretically run for 3 years instead of 4 months before disaster occurred.

I'm far more inclined to suggest putting in 2 drives, and running everything off 1 drive and using a second drive to occassionally copy data to. This way, you have some insurance in the event that either drive dies.

pparks1

In my case im using games and music that i copied from a backup location into the RAID0 drives, even if something goes wrong ill have the backup to re-copy the stuff over.

The thing is though that if you go RAID there is no turning back, seriously why someone that got the hardware and some time not try it?

If something can boost your performance greatly at this moment is the hard drive speed, because it's the only thing that can keep you down.

Rams, graphic cards, cpus etc are all ultra high speed these days, only the hdds are the bottleneck of the new systems.(except if you use an SDD or a very fast hdd)

Go raid is my advice, don't do it if you don't want the challenge or if you are happy with what you have. Time might be important for you and probably it will take at least some to fix a raid+rebuild it if something goes wrong at a point.

pparks1

�� Quote: Originally Posted by monstron

Go raid is my advice, don't do it if you don't want the challenge or if you are happy with what you have.

I think if the risk factors were exactly the same, it would be something that everybody should try. However, modern SATA hard drives can transfer at speeds of 75-100MB/s...and for the majority of what end-users do with computers...this isn't really bottlenecking them too much. So, I think a lot of people do fall into that category of "they are happy with what they have".

While I could take advantage of 150MB/s transfers when copying a virtual machine hard drive from one folder to another....the fact is that I don't really do this all that often. At 80MB/s a 10GB file would take approx 2 minutes and 5 seconds. With a RAID array at 150MB/s, the transfer time would drop to 1 minute and 7 seconds. If I copied this type of file, 5 times a week, I would save about 5 minutes time. Now, if I did this non-stop all day long, the gains might really be worth it.

But the problem is that if 1 of the 2 drives does fail..you lose everything. Sure, if you had 1 drive and it fails, you lose it all too. But with 2 drives in the mix, the possibility of losing one does increase.

Edit: I'm not saying that RAID 0 should never be used...but I wouldn't consider it's use a requirement or a no-brainer either.

monstron

�� Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1

...I'm far more inclined to suggest putting in 2 drives, and running everything off 1 drive and using a second drive to occassionally copy data to. This way, you have some insurance in the event that either drive dies.

I understand completely. If a user has such a limitation in actual disks, RAID0 is a risky propositon. I have ten disks onboard, including a four disk RAID5 volume. I archive to the RAID5 daily, as I assume any one of my drives will fail now.

This config is itself limiting in what I can do compared to what I want to do. For my purposes, I should probably go to SCSI tape, but equipment cost and capacity relative to occupied space prevents me from doing so. I will soon move my archive volume to an eight drive RAID6. I am considering moving to rack mount at that time.

Wrapping up - RAID0 does provide some benefit, but this benefit must be weighed against risk. Don't RAID0 if you don't have a valid archive mechanism or practice.

Guest

Another point: Drive failure is only one consideration. Bit error rate is an even bigger problem for me. As of this date, I am reticent to employ TB drives. I want to, but BER concerns me. Especially on RAID5.

Regarding RAID0 on two drives not providing enough "boost" to warrant the risk - that's why I ran 4 disk RAID0 for a year. BOOOOOST!

But one of the drives failed. A WD250 of some sort. I lost nothing - due to proper archive methodology and implementation.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Antman

Regarding RAID0 on two drives not providing enough "boost" to warrant the risk - that's why I ran 4 disk RAID0 for a year. BOOOOOST!

But again, if you don't really have a need to move data frequently faster than 70MB/s....it might not really be a benefit.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Antman

But one of the drives failed. A WD250 of some sort. I lost nothing - due to proper archive methodology and implementation.

If it was running your OS, you still lost time and had to get everything set back up. For some, that would be more risk then they are willing to accept.

Guest

Well i saw a really big difference in loading times, my games open a lot faster and they are loading content faster also.

I don't think that goal, is an extreme one to achieve. I lost maybe a day to fix what i needed and i gained 25-30%, in some cases more, in loading times.

Im ready for any fails that might occur, im using allready backed up files.

I will agree with you though that if you try RAID0 without backups, you have more to loose than you will gain so don't do it.

Guest

The rate of I/O increase that RAID0 provides is not limited to the transfer of data from volume to volume or volume to network. My primary application for the referenced platform is video editing and format conversion. The increase in productivity that RAID0 provides is substantial.

HerrKaLeun

Who is the old geezer in your avatar? It's been driving me a bit nuts.

stevieray

Geezer? I've been called worse, but are you calling old? I prefer seasoned.

Guest

Oh, sorry. Thought it was someone famous.

Guest

Chuckle. Too bad you can't run a face recognition app against that small pic. You never know.

I will tell you this much - start at the LOC. And do not look in IT.

Guest

Thanks but I'm not into playing games.

Guest

It is much easier to not play. Well done.

Guest

since you have that RAID talk... what happens in RAID 0 when the RAID controller fails and you need a new one (either RAID card, new Mobo or whatever).
will the new controller be able to splice the RAID 0 data together correctly? And only if it is the very same controller? What about I have RAID 0 from a southbridge... Mobo fails, I buy a new one.. can the new one use may RAID 0 data?

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Antman

Chuckle. Too bad you can't run a face recognition app against that small pic. You never know.

I will tell you this much - start at the LOC. And do not look in IT.

********* ****** ****

Tineye is a great image search engine!

Edit: Removed answer so others can play!

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun

since you have that RAID talk... what happens in RAID 0 when the RAID controller fails and you need a new one (either RAID card, new Mobo or whatever).
will the new controller be able to splice the RAID 0 data together correctly? And only if it is the very same controller? What about I have RAID 0 from a southbridge... Mobo fails, I buy a new one.. can the new one use may RAID 0 data?

The question is moot. RAID0 is for performance, not security. All data on RAID0 should be treated as already lost unless imaged or otherwise archived.

Having said that, the answer - it depends. Software RAID (to include the misnomered firmware RAID) is one thing, hardware RAID is another. The RAID configuration data, however, is stored within the volume(s) and recovery is possible and straightforward with the correct tools.

Guest

�� Quote: Originally Posted by stevieray

********* ****** ****

Tineye is a great image search engine!

Edit: Removed answer so others can play!

FTW