will raid speed things up much?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by blanking, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. blanking

    blanking Guest

    I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a motherboard
    based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority, multitasking and
    video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that boots up fast. I
    need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to consider whether I want
    to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard raid and I already have a
    sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know from anyone with personal
    experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2 hdd's will make a big speed
    difference to windowsxp startup time and the other priorities I have already
    mentioned. My research on the net has not been very helpful for getting a
    clear answer to what I want to know, in fact it has been rather confusing.
    So what can I expect in the real world?
     
    blanking, Aug 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:

    > ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    > hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    > other priorities I have already mentioned.


    Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    crash.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. blanking

    blanking Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f9u96d$i02$...
    > In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >
    >> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >> other priorities I have already mentioned.

    >
    > Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    > crash.


    Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
    had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
    isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
    take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
    using other raid configurations.
     
    blanking, Aug 15, 2007
    #3
  4. blanking

    Steve Guest

    On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:29:02 +1200, blanking wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >>> other priorities I have already mentioned.

    >>
    >> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >> crash.

    >
    > Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
    > had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
    > isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
    > take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
    > using other raid configurations.


    I have. Plenty. There's an 80GB SATA here on my desk as I speak. These raid
    offerings aren't real raid either - it's all done in software. If you want
    proper raid, then get a proper card with onboard cache and a battery
    backup. Don't forget extra, dedicated cooling for the two drives as well.

    Raid 1 offers the same write performance ( well, near as dammit ), but
    much improved read performance, as it's got 2 targets to get the info from.

    What sort of performance are you after? I get about 35MB/sec continuous
    from my disks and they're nothing special.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Aug 15, 2007
    #4
  5. blanking

    blanking Guest

    "Steve" <> wrote in message
    news:f9uc3g$6t8$...
    > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:29:02 +1200, blanking wrote:
    >
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and
    >>>> the
    >>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
    >>>
    >>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >>> crash.

    >>
    >> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have
    >> never
    >> had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
    >> isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
    >> take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
    >> using other raid configurations.

    >
    > I have. Plenty. There's an 80GB SATA here on my desk as I speak. These
    > raid
    > offerings aren't real raid either - it's all done in software. If you want
    > proper raid, then get a proper card with onboard cache and a battery
    > backup. Don't forget extra, dedicated cooling for the two drives as well.
    >
    > Raid 1 offers the same write performance ( well, near as dammit ), but
    > much improved read performance, as it's got 2 targets to get the info
    > from.
    >
    > What sort of performance are you after? I get about 35MB/sec continuous
    > from my disks and they're nothing special.
    >
    > Steve


    Well if I need to add extra cooling to run 2 hdd's as raid rather than just
    the normal then that's a deal breaker, is a 2nd hdd going add much heat if
    it's not running raid?
     
    blanking, Aug 15, 2007
    #5
  6. blanking

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:29:02 +1200, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:

    >
    >"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >>> other priorities I have already mentioned.

    >>
    >> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >> crash.

    >
    >Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
    >had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
    >isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
    >take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
    >using other raid configurations.
    >

    It must be your turn, then. I've lost two. Hard drive failures are
    not uncommon.
     
    Nighthawk, Aug 15, 2007
    #6
  7. In message <>, blanking wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >>> other priorities I have already mentioned.

    >>
    >> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >> crash.

    >
    > Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
    > had one fail...


    Don't be bloody silly.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 15, 2007
    #7
  8. blanking

    Steve Guest

    On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:46:45 +1200, blanking wrote:

    > Well if I need to add extra cooling to run 2 hdd's as raid rather than just
    > the normal then that's a deal breaker, is a 2nd hdd going add much heat if
    > it's not running raid?


    No. You need extra cooling to be sure the disks don't get hot, regardless
    of whether they run raid or not. They have moving parts ( which is why
    they wear out! ), and consume power, so they generate heat. They hotter
    they get, they shorter their lifespan.
     
    Steve, Aug 15, 2007
    #8
  9. blanking

    Hank Guest

    On Aug 15, 7:11 pm, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:
    > I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a motherboard
    > based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority, multitasking and
    > video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that boots up fast. I
    > need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to consider whether I want
    > to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard raid and I already have a
    > sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know from anyone with personal
    > experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2 hdd's will make a big speed
    > difference to windowsxp startup time and the other priorities I have already
    > mentioned. My research on the net has not been very helpful for getting a
    > clear answer to what I want to know, in fact it has been rather confusing.
    > So what can I expect in the real world?


    I have raid 0 via 2x 250GB SATA drives. I would never again purchase a
    system without it. For sustained read and writes its ALOT quicker.
    Especially if you want to do other things while your doing disk based
    activites, ie copy files and also browse the internet, or play a game.
    I'd dismiss the old fundies as they decree "you'll loose the lot!!!!",
    so what, you'll loose the lot with a single drive based system as
    well.

    Go for it, you wont go back.

    Hank.
     
    Hank, Aug 15, 2007
    #9
  10. blanking

    thingy Guest

    blanking wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >>> other priorities I have already mentioned.

    >> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >> crash.

    >
    > Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have never
    > had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance from raid
    > isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am prepared to
    > take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file security when
    > using other raid configurations.
    >
    >


    raid 5 reads as fast as raid 0, so if boot up is important then a raid 5
    is the way I would go....however, to be honest I do not believe you are
    going to see a difference worth paying for....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Aug 15, 2007
    #10
  11. blanking

    thingy Guest

    blanking wrote:
    > I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a motherboard
    > based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority, multitasking and
    > video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that boots up fast. I
    > need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to consider whether I want
    > to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard raid and I already have a
    > sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know from anyone with personal
    > experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2 hdd's will make a big speed
    > difference to windowsxp startup time and the other priorities I have already
    > mentioned. My research on the net has not been very helpful for getting a
    > clear answer to what I want to know, in fact it has been rather confusing.
    > So what can I expect in the real world?
    >
    >


    Looking at how XP/win2k3 boots inside VMware the CPU and Ram demand
    peaks very high for a short duration....easily maxing out a 3Ghz xeon on
    boot....

    Id expect an improvement for video editing with a discrete video
    card....I'd go for a reasonable but passively cooled one....basically a
    Nvidia xxxxGS model or equiv ATI with no fan....units like the ATI
    all-in-wonder used to be the bee's knees, these days however I'd look at
    an external firewire unit. Gigabyte and Asus units are well priced and
    usually come with a 2 or 3 year warrantee, probably my choice for Vendor.

    I would not consider XP bootup times important myself....You dont
    mention how much ram you have, I'd suggest 2 or maybe 3gig....or what
    your CPU is.....you could buy a new CPU and flog the old one on trademe
    and that might give you good value.

    The other possibility is the WD Raptor high performance series of
    HDs....very quick.....

    So really I'd like to hear more on what you do to give a better
    suggestion....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Aug 15, 2007
    #11
  12. blanking

    Allistar Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > blanking wrote:
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and
    >>>> the other priorities I have already mentioned.
    >>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >>> crash.

    >>
    >> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have
    >> never had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance
    >> from raid isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am
    >> prepared to take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file
    >> security when using other raid configurations.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > raid 5 reads as fast as raid 0, so if boot up is important then a raid 5
    > is the way I would go....however, to be honest I do not believe you are
    > going to see a difference worth paying for....


    RAID5 has quite poor write performance (essentially every write requires a
    read to recalculate the parity). This is most noticeable for lots of small
    writes (one of my client will not investigate performance issues with their
    software for clients that use this configuration).

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Aug 15, 2007
    #12
  13. blanking

    Allistar Guest

    Hank wrote:

    > On Aug 15, 7:11 pm, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:
    >> I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a
    >> motherboard based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority,
    >> multitasking and video editing are it's priorities and I want a system
    >> that boots up fast. I need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to
    >> consider whether I want to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard
    >> raid and I already have a sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know
    >> from anyone with personal experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >> other priorities I have already mentioned. My research on the net has not
    >> been very helpful for getting a clear answer to what I want to know, in
    >> fact it has been rather confusing. So what can I expect in the real
    >> world?

    >
    > I have raid 0 via 2x 250GB SATA drives. I would never again purchase a
    > system without it. For sustained read and writes its ALOT quicker.
    > Especially if you want to do other things while your doing disk based
    > activites, ie copy files and also browse the internet, or play a game.
    > I'd dismiss the old fundies as they decree "you'll loose the lot!!!!",
    > so what, you'll loose the lot with a single drive based system as
    > well.
    >
    > Go for it, you wont go back.


    Indeed. My main desktop has 4 x 320Gb SATA drives running primarily in a
    RAID 0+1 configuration. Mine is setup like this:

    /boot = RAID 1 (mirrored) 31M
    / = RAID 10 (stripe of mirrors) 94Gb
    /home = RAID 10 (stripe of mirrors) 491Gb
    /swap = non RAID (although the Linux kernel stripes this for me) 6Gb

    The only problem is that rebuilding the array takes *ages* (I rebuilt /home
    yesterday and it took about 4 hours).

    Configuration wise this is very easy to setup. Performance wise I can't
    comment on how much faster it is because I've never had another setup on
    this box. It seems very fast though.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Aug 15, 2007
    #13
  14. blanking

    thingy Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >
    >> blanking wrote:
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >>> news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >>>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and
    >>>>> the other priorities I have already mentioned.
    >>>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >>>> crash.
    >>> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have
    >>> never had one fail and raid 0 is the only way to get good performance
    >>> from raid isn't it? If the performance increase is enough I think i am
    >>> prepared to take the risk otherwise raid seems only any good for file
    >>> security when using other raid configurations.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> raid 5 reads as fast as raid 0, so if boot up is important then a raid 5
    >> is the way I would go....however, to be honest I do not believe you are
    >> going to see a difference worth paying for....

    >
    > RAID5 has quite poor write performance (essentially every write requires a
    > read to recalculate the parity). This is most noticeable for lots of small
    > writes (one of my client will not investigate performance issues with their
    > software for clients that use this configuration).
    >
    > Allistar.


    yes I know how raid5 works....

    The issue is boot performance, which is read intensive....then there is
    data protection which raid 5 achieves....so within the context that is
    asked for Raid5 looks to be a practical/possible solution...your needs
    would dictate raid 5 was not the solution as the criteria are
    DIFFERENT.....however I would describe your vendor as anal if they
    blindly refused to check out performance issues.

    however, in which case I'd look at Raid 1+0, but I'd also consider
    testing a R5(3+1) to see which performs better....last time MS
    recommended R1+0 for SQL cluster I demonstrated a R5(3+1) as 20% faster
    with no write penalty....databases do a lot of selects and with the same
    number of disks the better read speed won hands down...and SANS pretty
    much negate the write parity penalty as they have lots of cache and cpus....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Aug 16, 2007
    #14
  15. blanking

    blanking Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f9umcs$9v5$...
    > In message <>, blanking wrote:
    >
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> news:f9u96d$i02$...
    >>> In message <46c2a70e$>, blanking wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ... [will] a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and
    >>>> the
    >>>> other priorities I have already mentioned.
    >>>
    >>> Don't use RAID-0. You're doubling your chances of losing everything in a
    >>> crash.

    >>
    >> Yeah I know but in all my years 17 years of using a harddrive I have
    >> never
    >> had one fail...

    >
    > Don't be bloody silly.


    Why is it silly, it is true, just like it is true that in my 20 years of
    using a computer I have only had 1 virus, but that's a whole other story.
    I realise some people have had hdd's failures but I have never seen one with
    myself or anyone else I know, i wonder how many false failures there are
    though like people with corrupted mbr's thinking their drive has had it.
     
    blanking, Aug 16, 2007
    #15
  16. blanking

    blanking Guest

    "Hank" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Aug 15, 7:11 pm, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:
    >> I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a
    >> motherboard
    >> based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority, multitasking
    >> and
    >> video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that boots up fast.
    >> I
    >> need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to consider whether I
    >> want
    >> to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard raid and I already have a
    >> sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know from anyone with personal
    >> experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2 hdd's will make a big speed
    >> difference to windowsxp startup time and the other priorities I have
    >> already
    >> mentioned. My research on the net has not been very helpful for getting a
    >> clear answer to what I want to know, in fact it has been rather
    >> confusing.
    >> So what can I expect in the real world?

    >
    > I have raid 0 via 2x 250GB SATA drives. I would never again purchase a
    > system without it. For sustained read and writes its ALOT quicker.
    > Especially if you want to do other things while your doing disk based
    > activites, ie copy files and also browse the internet, or play a game.
    > I'd dismiss the old fundies as they decree "you'll loose the lot!!!!",
    > so what, you'll loose the lot with a single drive based system as
    > well.
    >
    > Go for it, you wont go back.
    >
    > Hank.


    Thanks, it is good to hear from someone with personal experience because so
    often people give advice based I what they think theoretically will be the
    case.
    What about windows xp startup time?
    I guess my only concern now is whether heat will be an issue and I guess
    trying is the only way i will find that out, remember I only have
    motherboard graphics which must count in my favour for heat issues, I really
    don't want to have to make modifications to deal with heat, I presume 2
    drives operating in raid will generate more heat than nonraid though as they
    will both be working hard at the same time. Did you notice a big increase in
    heat?
     
    blanking, Aug 16, 2007
    #16
  17. blanking

    blanking Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hank wrote:
    >
    >> On Aug 15, 7:11 pm, "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote:
    >>> I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a
    >>> motherboard based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority,
    >>> multitasking and video editing are it's priorities and I want a system
    >>> that boots up fast. I need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to
    >>> consider whether I want to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard
    >>> raid and I already have a sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know
    >>> from anyone with personal experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >>> other priorities I have already mentioned. My research on the net has
    >>> not
    >>> been very helpful for getting a clear answer to what I want to know, in
    >>> fact it has been rather confusing. So what can I expect in the real
    >>> world?

    >>
    >> I have raid 0 via 2x 250GB SATA drives. I would never again purchase a
    >> system without it. For sustained read and writes its ALOT quicker.
    >> Especially if you want to do other things while your doing disk based
    >> activites, ie copy files and also browse the internet, or play a game.
    >> I'd dismiss the old fundies as they decree "you'll loose the lot!!!!",
    >> so what, you'll loose the lot with a single drive based system as
    >> well.
    >>
    >> Go for it, you wont go back.

    >
    > Indeed. My main desktop has 4 x 320Gb SATA drives running primarily in a
    > RAID 0+1 configuration. Mine is setup like this:
    >
    > /boot = RAID 1 (mirrored) 31M
    > / = RAID 10 (stripe of mirrors) 94Gb
    > /home = RAID 10 (stripe of mirrors) 491Gb
    > /swap = non RAID (although the Linux kernel stripes this for me) 6Gb
    >
    > The only problem is that rebuilding the array takes *ages* (I rebuilt
    > /home
    > yesterday and it took about 4 hours).
    >
    > Configuration wise this is very easy to setup. Performance wise I can't
    > comment on how much faster it is because I've never had another setup on
    > this box. It seems very fast though.
    >
    > Allistar.


    Thanks.
     
    blanking, Aug 16, 2007
    #17
  18. blanking

    blanking Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > blanking wrote:
    >> I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a
    >> motherboard based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority,
    >> multitasking and video editing are it's priorities and I want a system
    >> that boots up fast. I need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to
    >> consider whether I want to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard
    >> raid and I already have a sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know
    >> from anyone with personal experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >> other priorities I have already mentioned. My research on the net has not
    >> been very helpful for getting a clear answer to what I want to know, in
    >> fact it has been rather confusing. So what can I expect in the real
    >> world?

    >
    > Looking at how XP/win2k3 boots inside VMware the CPU and Ram demand peaks
    > very high for a short duration....easily maxing out a 3Ghz xeon on
    > boot....
    >
    > Id expect an improvement for video editing with a discrete video
    > card....I'd go for a reasonable but passively cooled one....basically a
    > Nvidia xxxxGS model or equiv ATI with no fan....units like the ATI
    > all-in-wonder used to be the bee's knees, these days however I'd look at
    > an external firewire unit. Gigabyte and Asus units are well priced and
    > usually come with a 2 or 3 year warrantee, probably my choice for Vendor.
    >
    > I would not consider XP bootup times important myself....You dont mention
    > how much ram you have, I'd suggest 2 or maybe 3gig....or what your CPU
    > is.....you could buy a new CPU and flog the old one on trademe and that
    > might give you good value.
    >
    > The other possibility is the WD Raptor high performance series of
    > HDs....very quick.....
    >
    > So really I'd like to hear more on what you do to give a better
    > suggestion....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    The thing is I was only interested in what raid might do as I need to buy a
    2nd harddrive anyhow and will need to buy the same capacity if i intend to
    use raid, I am not interested in spending any extra money to improve my
    performance, I realise there are many other things to consider if I wanted
    to max out my performance and was willing to spend the money to do so, just
    want to get the best out of what i already have.
     
    blanking, Aug 16, 2007
    #18
  19. blanking

    Allistar Guest

    blanking wrote:

    >
    > "thingy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> blanking wrote:
    >>> I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a
    >>> motherboard based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority,
    >>> multitasking and video editing are it's priorities and I want a system
    >>> that boots up fast. I need to buy another harddrive, but first I need to
    >>> consider whether I want to use a raid setup, my motherboard has onboard
    >>> raid and I already have a sata2 based hdd so what I would like to know
    >>> from anyone with personal experience is if a raid 0 setup with 2 sata2
    >>> hdd's will make a big speed difference to windowsxp startup time and the
    >>> other priorities I have already mentioned. My research on the net has
    >>> not been very helpful for getting a clear answer to what I want to know,
    >>> in fact it has been rather confusing. So what can I expect in the real
    >>> world?

    >>
    >> Looking at how XP/win2k3 boots inside VMware the CPU and Ram demand peaks
    >> very high for a short duration....easily maxing out a 3Ghz xeon on
    >> boot....
    >>
    >> Id expect an improvement for video editing with a discrete video
    >> card....I'd go for a reasonable but passively cooled one....basically a
    >> Nvidia xxxxGS model or equiv ATI with no fan....units like the ATI
    >> all-in-wonder used to be the bee's knees, these days however I'd look at
    >> an external firewire unit. Gigabyte and Asus units are well priced and
    >> usually come with a 2 or 3 year warrantee, probably my choice for Vendor.
    >>
    >> I would not consider XP bootup times important myself....You dont mention
    >> how much ram you have, I'd suggest 2 or maybe 3gig....or what your CPU
    >> is.....you could buy a new CPU and flog the old one on trademe and that
    >> might give you good value.
    >>
    >> The other possibility is the WD Raptor high performance series of
    >> HDs....very quick.....
    >>
    >> So really I'd like to hear more on what you do to give a better
    >> suggestion....
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing

    >
    > The thing is I was only interested in what raid might do as I need to buy
    > a 2nd harddrive anyhow and will need to buy the same capacity if i intend
    > to use raid, I am not interested in spending any extra money to improve my
    > performance, I realise there are many other things to consider if I wanted
    > to max out my performance and was willing to spend the money to do so,
    > just want to get the best out of what i already have.


    The two drives don't need to be the same size, the only requirement is the
    two partitions that make up the RAID are the same size. You'll be left over
    with some spare space on the larger drive if it's bigger that the smaller
    one. You could use this spare space for something else, like log files or
    swap space.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Aug 16, 2007
    #19
  20. blanking

    Cadae Guest

    "blanking" <blanking@brain> wrote in message
    news:46c2a70e$...
    >I have a dual processor system running windows xp, it only has a
    >motherboard based graphics processor because gaming is not a priority,
    >multitasking and video editing are it's priorities and I want a system that
    >boots up fast.


    Video editing is hugely impacted by processor type, speed and ram,
    especially when it comes to editing and rendering. My old 3.4GHz P4 used to
    take 6 hours to render what my 2.66Mhz Core 2 quad-core takes about 30
    minutes to do. If you can fork out for a core 2 proc, motherboard and extra
    ram, that will speed up your video editing more than a faster disk system.

    Don't worry too much about heat in your hard disks - current 300G+ drives
    use only around 20W under load.

    I think you should take note of the warnings about Raid 0 - if you run 2
    disks in that configuration you are doubling your chances of losing your
    data, and that is just asking for trouble.
    For example, out of the eight 300Gb Sata 2 disks I've brought in the last 12
    months, I've had 2 failures within 3 months of purchase. I've worshipped my
    Adaptec raid card in raid 5E mode when that happened.

    Another thing to note - many of the drives I've bought recently have been
    factory configured to SATA 1- you have to remove a jumper on them to enable
    SATA II.

    I recommend you be careful with motherboard based Raid systems - they tend
    to be buggy and have some limitations that ought to be well highlited in the
    vendor documentation but aren't - for instance, all the Intel chipset based
    versions have a 2 Terrabyte disk limit. According to motherboard forum
    reports, the NVidia-chipset based versions have been more reliable and don't
    have the same 2 TB limitation as the Intel versions. Some users have
    recommended not using a motherboard based RAID for the disk that houses your
    OS services and swap area - they recommend dedicating a smaller non-raided
    drive for OS services (bootup, swap space etc) and have 2 other drives
    RAIDed for data/programs.

    If you do choose to use a motherboard-based RAID, you will probably have to
    update your BIOS to the latest levels to avoid some truely nasty early Raid
    bugs . Check the manufacturer's forum for your motherboard for more details.


    PC
     
    Cadae, Aug 16, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    886
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    787
  3. SATA - Raid and Non Raid Question

    , Jan 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    800
  4. =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?=

    Does x64 require a SATA RAID Driver to install non-RAID SATA Drive

    =?Utf-8?B?VGhlb3JldGljYWxseQ==?=, Jul 15, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,003
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jul 18, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    RAID 5 Down, RAID 6 To Go

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 23, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Feb 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page