How fast is raid 0

Josh: In my experience hard drives don't fail all that often, so twice the chance of failure isn't that big a deal. Your backup strategy should depend on how much work you're willing to lose more than how likely you are to lose it.

Show 1 more comment. Unfortunately, some of the programs I regularly use both a put lots think GBs of data in the program files folder b act funny if they aren't installed to C: meaning that I have to use a large drive as my system drive.

Believe me, I prefer the other arrangement and had it on two of my other systems, but these programs tend to be annoying. What size would you recommend for a OS-only drive, if I decided to go that way? And is the 10k rpm a huge improvement over ? Look at the file seek times. You're looking at half or less from the huge storage drives. For tasks like booting your system, running games, anything that involves loading multiple files, the high performance single drives make a huge difference.

Obviously, for the programs that put lots of data on the drive, you use a media drive. Also, windows xp and above include support for mounting one drive within a folder on another, so if you don't HAVE to be in the ROOT of the drive, it can look like a big drive. I've run my system drive on the first generation 75GB raptor for a long time now. This doesn't really address the original question. The question is whether it's better to use them in RAID-0 or as a single drive.

Brettski Brettski 9 9 silver badges 15 15 bronze badges. Henryk Henryk. DHayes DHayes 2, 13 13 silver badges 17 17 bronze badges. Not even if it was backed up? It all depends on your tolerance for data loss. I have some directories backed up to NAS which I am okay with losing the local copy. In case of data loss, I'm fine with just copying things back over. If it is something that I feel is worth backing up, then I probably don't want to lose it in the first place.

I would likely opt for a different RAID method. With RAID0, every disk you add multiplies your chance of a data failure. It's good for cheap performance, but I wouldn't use it for anything I had a slight worry about. With a good backup strategy, a drive failure is a matter of time, replacement cost, and inconvenience.

I wouldn't want to lose stuff, so I back up to an external drive. If the internal drive fails, I haven't lost any creative work. Yep, I've already considered all that and am getting pretty good performers in those areas.

Good luck :. John Molokach John Molokach 1. Benjamin Crouzier Benjamin Crouzier 5, 11 11 gold badges 29 29 silver badges 44 44 bronze badges.

The Overflow Blog. Podcast Explaining the semiconductor shortage, and how it might end. Does ES6 make JavaScript frameworks obsolete? When a RAID 0 array fails, the data is unavailable until recovery is finished. This means lost productivity and money. Higher RAID levels let you continue working while the failing or failed drive is hot-swapped, albeit at slightly reduced performance while the array is rebuilt. There are some useful applications for RAID 0 when the need to cut costs meets a need for speed.

The main concern is that the data is easily replaceable, i. For example: RAID 0 is fine as a single node in a multi-node backup strategy, or as scratch storage for heaps-of-data tasks such as 4K or 8K video editing or transcoding. In this case, two or more RAID 0 setups mirror each other, that is, the same data is written to each simultaneously. All Speed, No Safety.

Securing Kuburnetes with StackRox. This brings me to my next question - Can a RAID 1 array be built anytime without having to start from scratch e. Can I just add a second drive same size as the initial drive and build the array? Thanks again. For my Vista Business image, the fresh install option was chosen to get the necessary drivers and software inserted into the OS. In either case, you should have a backup anyway, Acronis or Window Home Server will do a full image, and allow you to copy it back anyway.

A failed HD is actually not the top way to lose data Protects against more data-loss scenarios than a RAID. Not that RAID doesn't have its place, but it definitely belongs further down the list of priorities than a proper backup.

Can an external mirror drive on RAID1 be used periodically, or does it always need to be hooked up when running the computer. Thanks, as always. I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. The average access time of a RAID 0 system of drive model X is the same as that of one of the member disks.

And the sustained write performance of a RAID 0 system comes pretty close to a linear function multiple of the number of drives in the array. People don't use big RAID 0 boxes to capture uncompressed video because they have poor write performance. All I know is my Raid0 Array does eveything faster than when I boot on just one drive. It benches twice as fast, it boots faster, it loads game maps faster. Waiting for my second Raptor to raid now.

Mostly false. RAID 1 can certainly degrade i. Its not wise, as it removes your redundancy, but in the case of a home user, it may be an entirely valid backup method if the second drive is only synced up periodically.

Please point us to a meaningful single-user benchmark that shows a 2-drive RAID-0 array as being twice as fast as a single drive.

For faster disks, this increase will be lower. I have no doubt that a 2-drive RAID-0 array is faster than a single drive. You appear to misunderstand the purpose behind RAID It's supposed to be able to continue delivering data when a disk fails.

For either of these in a new build, you'll need a SATA-attached disk. The best way to do this is with a hot-swap caddy, which will take up a bay, similar to your optical drive. The best solution would be to use an external disk, and do a backup to it. This is not correct. This is something that most people don't understand.

I'll do this at a basic level, so that everyone can understand it. The access time is the sum of the seek time and the rotational latency. The seek time time to put the heads on a cylinder of an array is the same as for a single disk. The rotational latency of a single disk in the array is the same as for that disk outside of the array.

The reason for the increase in rotational latency has to do with the randomness of the individual disks, combined with how we define rotational latency. When we have an array with two disks, and both need to be accessed by a single transfer, both drives will have to spin until the data is under the head.

The second drive will be faster than that about half the time, which will not effect the rotational latency, and slower than that the other half of the time, which WILL effect the rotational latency. Each time you add a drive, it will "eat up" half of the time between where you currently are, and the time of a full rotation. This is why drives in arrays used to be synchronized. When you synchronize drives in an array, the rotational latency doesn't increase as you add drives.

Ummm, FAIL. As others have pointed out; RAID 1 provides protection against data loss through drive redundancy. If one drive fails, the RAID 1 array is in a "degraded" state, but the remaining drive still runs and may be used in this degraded state as a single drive and provides the source for rebuilding the array when a replacement drive is introduced.

Thank you for summing it up nicely. In that case, most requests smaller than the stripe width should be satisfied by a single seek, while for most requests greater than the stripe width, the second drive should be ready by the time the first has transfered its data.

True, you will always have the slowdown you describe for a two block read that spans two disks, but the average case should have little slowdown for any IO size. What type of two-disk configuration?

One small drive for the OS and a large drive for data i. C: and D:? Is that also true for SATA drives? PS 10k rpm drives are too rich for my blood, so that's not an option for an OS drive. The segment size you describe is between KB and 1MB on current production disks. This will only change the point where the slowdown occurs, and won't remove it completely.

It will also decrease the speedup from the RAID-0 array under "normal" conditions. Look in the Agora for used Raptors. This is a VERY rare event. Game benchmarks, Office benchmarks, Photoshop benchmarks and boot time benchmarks are common.

The game benchmarks will have a near zero improvement, except when a map load is performed I haven't seen a benchmark that checks this. I expect that the best performance improvements would be for video editing, but you'd see even better scores for separate disks one input and one output. I don't expect to ever see one.