HD setup for best performance

[ales19]

hi everyone
im going to buy a new pc shortly with the folowing specs:

AMD 2800+ fsb 333
Ram PC 3200 512 Mb
120 GB MAXTOR 7200 RPM S-ATA/150 8Mb (two of these)
SVGA ATi Sapphire Radeon 9600 128MB DDR 8X
MB ASUS A7V600 KT600 K7 FSB400 DDR400 SB 8X LAN USB2.0 ATA133 SATA ATX
(or MB Gigabyte 7vt600/1394 Kt600 3ddr Audio 6ch Lan Agp8x Usb 2.0 Ie1394 Raid 0.1 S-Ata)
TERRATEC Cinergy 400 TV Stereo

ill be using it mainly for normal usage (office, browsing, etc.) but i will also be doing some work on multimendia like capturing/editing/ripping/encoding/etc...
now my problem is how to set up the 2 HD's, should i use the onboard raid controller and set them up as raid0 or just keep them as separate drives?
im not very familiar with raid, but as far as i know (and read on the forum) that kind of setup will definitely boost performance for everyday use, but will it do the same with video encoding?
or would it be better (performance wise) to just keep the drives separate and capture to the 1st one and then encode to the 2nd one? (so that one would be just reading and the other one just writing)
besides this second option would have the advantage of retaining at least half of my data in case one of the two drives crashes...
thanks to anyone that can help

ps: would i also be better off with 1Gb of RAM instead of 512Mb? (strictly encoding speaking)

ps2: feel free to suggest alternatives to the parts i chose since i havent bought it yet...

[r6d2]

Originally posted by ales19
im not very familiar with raid, but as far as i know (and read on the forum) that kind of setup will definitely boost performance for everyday use, but will it do the same with video encoding?
That depends on whether you will encode everyday :)
half of my data in case one of the two drives crashes...
When selecting a configuration for a RAID system, you have to choose 2 out the following features: fast, cheap, secure. You cannot have the best of the three worlds at once.

RAID 0: fast, cheap, not secure (data is not redundant).
RAID 0+1: fast, secure, not cheap (needs twice the space).
RAID 5: secure, cheap, not as fast.

However, my guess is that for this kind of task, pretty linear, it'd be better to use one drive to read and the other to write.
ps: would i also be better off with 1Gb of RAM instead of 512Mb? (strictly encoding speaking)
Not likely. You'd have lots of free memory for other stuff, but then you'd have little CPU power for other things. IMHO, 512-MB is more than enough. If you have some cash left, I suggest you get a faster CPU instead.

[ales19]

That depends on whether you will encode everyday
well, maybe at the beginning, but on a normal basis definitely not :)
normally i will probably not be encoding more than 1-2 times a month.

RAID 5: secure, cheap, not as fast.
nice raid explanation, simple and easy to understand... :)
as for the raid5 solution, how space cheap is it, and how much performance boosting would it give compared to the separate drive solution?
(if any)
you can also point me to a site if the explanation is too long and if you have the link handy...

However, my guess is that for this kind of task, pretty linear, it'd be better to use one drive to read and the other to write.
ok so what tipe of jobs would you suggest raid for? (in case i forgot to mention something im going to do)

IMHO, 512-MB is more than enough
yes, thats what i was thinking too, i just wanted confirmation by someone more knowledgable than me :)
and btw, thanks for the info :cool:

ps: of course if anyone else has suggestions or disagrees he/she is free to post his/her thoughts :D

[r6d2]

Originally posted by ales19
you can also point me to a site if the explanation is too long and if you have the link handy...
Yup. This page (http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?prodkey=quick_explanation_of_raid) is very good and since brief, twice as good. ;)
so what tipe of jobs would you suggest raid for?
For those jobs which pay lots of money and you can afford a RAID 0+1 system. :D

I've been using PCs for 20 years, and not once a hard drive has crashed to the point I lose data. I still used to have to reinstall W98 from scratch every 2 months, and XP improved that to 6 months, but that is because I do heavy, and I mean heavy, software/hardware installs/uninstalls.

I'd never use a RAID system on a personal computer since the speed gain depends on the application used and I do different stuff. I'd use a RAID on a server though for performance and security reasons (0+1).

I prefer to handle PC data security with a backup (and away from home).

But all this is just IMHO. Some users of this forum use RAID systems and are happy with them.

[Solo]

I also wouldn't bother with RAID as you will loose half your HHD space. And I'm sure as you know when ripping VOB's or capturing you need PLENTY of Gig's. I also have never had a home HHD crash and lose any data, but my work one did once. RAID is nice and fast for capture if you had say 3 drives and you had 2 as RAID setup. Just move your pagefile to second drive though for best performance. Enjoy.

[bobsc]

Originally posted by ales19
ps: would i also be better off with 1Gb of RAM instead of 512Mb? (strictly encoding speaking)
512Mb is fine, but PC2700 would be a better match with AMD 2800+ fsb 333.

[ales19]

r6d2:
thanks for the page link, it was very clear and got it all sorted out. in my 18 years of pc usage i havent been as lucky and have seen the premature departure of a decent number of hardware pieces including: 1 C64 (salvaged the first time, unrecoverable the second), 1 EGA video card, 1 MB with connected P3 Cpu, and a number of modems and HD's, so i decided to play it safe and go for separated drivers. :)
anyway thnks for all the info.

Solo:
well if i had to set up a raid sistem i would have chosen a raid0 system anyway, so i would not have wasted any space, but as i have already stated, i finally decided to go for the separate drive solution. in any case im going to get two identical drives in case i someday decide (during one of the frequent win reinstalls) to try raid out! :)

bobsc:
well, i decided on 400Mhz ram in case i want to try overclocking the system a bit :)

[battyice1847]

well, i decided on 400Mhz ram in case i want to try overclocking the system a bit

I'd recommend sticking with 512mb of PC3200. Take the $$ you were going to use to buy the extra 512 stick of RAM and step up to an Athlon 3000 w/ 400mhz FSB. Last I checked it is only about 70 dollars more than the 2800 you are looking at. If you're still interested in overclocking, most of these CPU's will happily run with a multiplier of 11 which gives you an Athlon 3200 :-)

Just my $.02

Have fun

[theReal]

I'm not a fan of IDE RAID0 anymore - it's fast (not too fast, btw...) but it's also very insecure. I've had 3 different setups on 2 different controllers and always had to re-format the RAID0 partition after about 6 months because of data access errors.

Now I keep my drives as seperate single drives and rather put different system files on to different HD's (one HD for the system, one for temp and page file, one for capturing, one for my data... something like this). This way, the system speed is as fast as with RAID0, but I've never lost data ever since.

If you want to try RAID0 - don't put important data on the RAID drives! Don't do it!!! :scared:

[OvERaCiD23]

Originally posted by theReal

If you want to try RAID0 - don't put important data on the RAID drives! Don't do it!!! :scared:

I personally found it annoying to worry about drive letters when doing heavy data transfers; therefore, I went with RAID0 and am currently happy with it. Of course, I don't keep any important data on there. It really saves the hassle of which drive I'm writing to. To the original poster, give RAID0 a try and see how you like it.

'd recommend sticking with 512mb of PC3200. Take the $$ you were going to use to buy the extra 512 stick of RAM and step up to an Athlon 3000 w/ 400mhz FSB. Last I checked it is only about 70 dollars more than the 2800 you are looking at. If you're still interested in overclocking, most of these CPU's will happily run with a multiplier of 11 which gives you an Athlon 3200 :-)

Or buy a 2600 and overclock it to 2.3ghz. I'm quite happy with this, and I only run ~52*C on a stock heatsink/CPU fan. I've run 3 different benchmark utilities and have performed better than a 3200 in every test. For an $83 CPU, I can't complain about the performance from my 2600.

[theReal]

I just wanted to add - I'm quite in favor of SCSI hardware RAID 3/4/5 as these seem to be really save and fast solutions - on the other hand, you'll need a good and expensive Controller and a bunch of SCSI disks for these RAID levels, so I guess this wasn't in question here...

btw. for mirorring single folders, you can use a nice little software called "mirrorfolder". When you have two independent HDs, this program does the job of a RAID 1 without wasting any space (it copies selected folders to the other harddisk and synchronizes them in realtime)

[codename_46]

Something I'm also curious about. I'm planning on making the system drives in my new system a hardware RAID 0 running off of a seperate controller, not the one on the board. BUT I've heard that for using RAID 0 you get better performance if you put the drives on difference channels (drive 1 as primary master, drive 2 as secondary master) instead of leaving them both on the same channel (drive 1 primary master, drive 2 primary slave).
Anyone had much experience with this or have a recommendation??

[dvd_maniac]

Yes you should have them on seperate channels, if you put them on the same cable(i.e. prim master, sec slave) then you lower the bandwitdh to each drive. Thus, negating the performance of raid0. Make sure you use the Same make+model hard drives also. I have two 120GB seagates SATA on a promise SATA controller as raid0 setup and 2 80GB western digital hard drives on a PCI Promise controller card with my Temp and Page files that I also use for capturing. I am totally happy with my setup.

@theReal
I'm not a fan of IDE RAID0 anymore - it's fast (not too fast, btw...) but it's also very insecure. I've had 3 different setups on 2 different controllers and always had to re-format the RAID0 partition after about 6 months because of data access errors.

I have been using Raid0 for about three years and have never had any problems with them. Most of the three years with 2 different raid0 setups in same computer.
What kind of hardware and setup did you have the problems with?

[jeremymacmull]

@dvdmaniac

im thinking of buying the seagate barracudas 120 gb SATA and putting them in RAID 0 but i have a few questions

1) is it hard to set up what do u have to do any tips

2) what transfer speeds do u get realistically

3)do u notice a difference in speed in general windows usage and games

4) does it make any impact at all on DVD encoding either as mpeg2 or mpeg4 variants ?

thanks in advance for the answers

JEREMY

[theReal]

4) does it make any impact at all on DVD encoding either as mpeg2 or mpeg4 variants ?

Compared to a setup where you have the source files on one drive and the output on another (with both drives on seperate controllers as master drives) it doesn't make any difference at all - maybe it's even slower because both drives are used for read and write at the same time while with the other setup one reads and the other writes.

Even if you encode on just one (fairly fast) drive, it won't make much of a difference - DVD mpeg doesn't have a very demanding data rate for modern drives.

ps: would i also be better off with 1Gb of RAM instead of 512Mb? (strictly encoding speaking)
Adobe Photoshop as well as Adobe Premiere Pro will profit from one or even two GB of RAM (but they're still OK to work with with only 512MB). I haven't yet encountered any other programs that would profit from more than 512MB RAM.

[theReal]

II have been using Raid0 for about three years and have never had any problems with them. Most of the three years with 2 different raid0 setups in same computer.
What kind of hardware and setup did you have the problems with?


Two Maxtor 30GB with a Fastrak 66 controller (PCI card)
Two WD 60GB with a Highpoint 370 controller (onboard)
Two IBM Deskstar 120 GB with the same Highpoint controller.

All of the drives are still in use, they're working fine - also the Fastrak controller is still in use with the Maxtor drives (as single drives) and is working fine. Also the Highpoint was so good as a single controller that I recently bought a new board with a Highpoint 372...

Maybe it was just bad luck, maybe I was overusing the setup - but I won't switch to RAID0 anymore.

However, 'tis very nice to have 4 IDE channels on board, so 2 of my fast HDs and my DVD writer can be single master devices.