Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: RAID-0 Performance Under Windows 7

18 Aug 2009   #31
chev65

Windows 7 Ult, Windows 8.1 Pro,
 
 

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!


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
18 Aug 2009   #32
Antman

 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by chev65 View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #33
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Antman View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

18 Aug 2009   #34
monstron

win7 7600x64 RTM
 
 

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.

My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #35
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by monstron View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #36
Antman

 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
...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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #37
Antman

 

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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #38
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Antman View Post
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   Quote: Originally Posted by Antman View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #39
monstron

win7 7600x64 RTM
 
 

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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Aug 2009   #40
Antman

 

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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 RAID-0 Performance Under Windows 7




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Windows 7 RAID 0 (Striping) Performance ?
Hi all. First of all if the thread is at wrong side, mods mercy me :) I am new to RAID and yesterday i wanted to try it and i figured out i can do it from disk managment.(I think its call software RAID ?) I have 500 gb hdd with 2 partition (C: F:) (main, the hdd which is os installed) and 80...
Performance & Maintenance
Windows 7 and SSD in raid performance
Hello, I have two of these SSD's, and I have set them up in raid0 (with motherboard raid-mode setup as I dont have any raid controller). My Windows 7 uses pretty long time to boot, especially with SSD's in raid. http://bildr.no/thumb/1114605.jpeg What is causing this?
Hardware & Devices
2 Cheetah 15.7k in Raid 0 and still no performance?
I have a fully loaded HP XW8600 Workstation with: 16 GB 2 quadcore 3.16 Ghz procs nVidia Geforce 480 I just purchased 2 Seagate Cheetah 15.7k disks and have installed them as Raid 0. I was expecting nothing less than a blazing fast system. But it is not really fast. When I checked I found...
Hardware & Devices
Poor Raid 0 Performance
Here are my specs and problem. GIGABYTE GA-890FXA-UD5 AM3 AMD 890FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-8GBRL 2 SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"...
Performance & Maintenance
Poor Raid-0 Performance
Greetings, I recently had the opportunity to purchase a matching WD Raptor ADFD 74GB hard drive and set them up in a RAID-0 array to to host Windows 7. I downloaded the latest Intel Rapid Storage Technology driver and enabled Write-Back Caching, but I don't seem to get the same results some...
Hardware & Devices
Raid 0 for performance
I recently bought an Asus CG5290 system at BestBuy with Vista 64. I received the Windows 7 upgrade disk last week, and was considering buying a matching HD and setting up a RAID 0 array for better performance. I am not worried about redundancy, as I back up all my files on external storage. I...
Hardware & Devices


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:31.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App