SATA RAID... Do Not DO What I Did

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 23 Mar 2006, 14:51

Dude, just because Bill gates is ripping us off and "stealing" from us doesn't make it okay for us to do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right.

MJAY · Post by **MJAY** » 23 Mar 2006, 14:57

Mouba wrote: And if it comes to software (especially Microsoft) I am sure that you know that uncle Bill is the grandaddy of stealing, especcially someone elses ideas.

You do have a point there... But that is also besides the point and he can afford to buy himself out a hole can you?

Mouba · Post by **Mouba** » 23 Mar 2006, 15:30

Mjay wrote:You do have a point there... But that is also besides the point and he can afford to buy himself out a hole can you?

No I suppose I can't, but thats why I won't disclose what I have or don't have.
Look all I'm saying is don't trash a guy for having some 'dodgy' software, if it's the only way he can use his PC, keep the comments to yourself.
I certainly will not judge him.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 23 Mar 2006, 15:45

Have you ever used RAID 0 jamin? Max theoretical reduction of 50% because your max theoretical transfer speed increases by x2. Maybe its all in my head, but I do definately see a difference. Not 50%, but there is a difference. Copying large files, and this is proven, is done at very close to twice the speed on a RAID 0 system.

If a game took 30 seconds to load, it now takes roughly 22 - 25 seconds. Windows boots in 15 seconds, I've never seen that prior to RAID. Granted, some stuff still loads in the background but you can still start playing around.

Try it out for yourself if your willing to struggle and don't have any NB data. It works for me, don't know if it will work for everyone. Its also dependant on your controller. I helped a colleague set it up on his dual core intel on a 955x chipset and we struggled and eventually it seemed very slow. We found out that there are 2 RAID controllers (SI controller and an Intel) on his mobo. We tried the Intel controller and reduced the stripe size to 64k and SiSandra disk bench showed more than double the throughput as it did on the Silicon Image controller. He uses it for video and image editing and for this, it is extremely suited.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 23 Mar 2006, 15:51

and I am sure that if a FX-60 could be copied AMD would be in trouble.

Its called overclocking. Dual core opterons are more/less FX-60s with opteron "badges". There is also speed binning. All chips are made the same way, its just that the ones that are tested to work better at higher frequencies are labelled differently. Some chips are placed into lower speed grades to satisfy market demand.

Azriel · Post by **Azriel** » 23 Mar 2006, 15:53

Dom wrote:R400 is roughly the price for a PSP\PS2 game...

Most PC games are in the vicinity of R270-R300.

Exactly, it's only things like Quake 4 which cos R400, in some cases you get the game and it's expansions for under R300.

Rash50 wrote:You can't afford original software but can afford 3x 120gb hdd's and have a Thermaltake Tsunami case with who knows what else? I think you deserved it. btw. Where do you buy your games from that you pay R400 for them? The standard price is 'bout R320.

Isn't it the Thermaltake Soprano? I've got one, set me back about R1700.

*too bad he's still using the garden chair for he's pc! should invest some $ in that... and maybe a maid too!

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:01

Yeah, i hate it when people use the "no money for games" excuse but they've got money for a fancy case or a high end PC. It's just no excuse.

WiK1d · Post by **WiK1d** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:09

DAE_JA_VOO wrote:Yeah, i hate it when people use the "no money for games" excuse but they've got money for a fancy case or a high end PC. It's just no excuse.

He he he!

I should stop using that excuse aswell...

Mouba · Post by **Mouba** » 24 Mar 2006, 07:48

Hex_Rated wrote:Its called overclocking. Dual core opterons are more/less FX-60s with opteron "badges". There is also speed binning. All chips are made the same way, its just that the ones that are tested to work better at higher frequencies are labelled differently. Some chips are placed into lower speed grades to satisfy market demand.

I meant if you were able to copy it like software.
Get hold of a FX-60, get a 'empty' chip, put it in a machine and 2 minutes later pops out a illegal copy of a FX-60.

Mouba · Post by **Mouba** » 24 Mar 2006, 07:50

Hex_Rated wrote:Its called overclocking. Dual core opterons are more/less FX-60s with opteron "badges". There is also speed binning. All chips are made the same way, its just that the ones that are tested to work better at higher frequencies are labelled differently. Some chips are placed into lower speed grades to satisfy market demand.

I must have a lot of overclocked software then.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 24 Mar 2006, 09:00

Hex_Rated wrote:Have you ever used RAID 0 jamin?

I have setup and used RAID0.
If anyone here has used Edius for video editing, they will know what a resource hog it is.
I never said that RAID wasnt faster, or that it did not increase data transfer speeds.
What I said was that there is no way it will increase game load times by 25%.

Hex_Rated wrote:If a game took 30 seconds to load, it now takes roughly 22 - 25 seconds.

A 5-7 second decrease in a games load time of 30 seconds also seems unlikely, if attributed solely to RAID0.
But I wont aruing this with you - since it is possible and I dont think that you are bluffing.

Oj · Post by Oj » 24 Mar 2006, 10:54

The money would be better spent on a faster HDD/more RAM

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 24 Mar 2006, 13:36

I must have a lot of overclocked software then.

LOL.

MrBean · Post by **MrBean** » 28 Mar 2006, 21:20

Raid 0, when using decent harddrives, eg Raptors, and a good powerful cpu/memory subsystem, will be very noticably faster than ANY single drive setup.

That goes for loading games, starting/shutting Windows, general copying, etc.

If you know what you're doing setting up Raid disks, it need not be a painfull process.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 29 Mar 2006, 06:39

MrBean wrote:Raid 0, when using decent harddrives, eg Raptors, and a good powerful cpu/memory subsystem, will be very noticably faster than ANY single drive setup.

The 150GB SATA raptors go for around R2000 each.
2 of those, plus the high spec mobo, CPU and RAM you would need to create a "powerful cpu/memory subsystem"....
I would say R10000, excl the graphics card(s).

8O

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » 29 Mar 2006, 07:05

Hey there Mr B ... Long time no see!

Yeah, with all the right spec parts Raid may give you an advantage, but would that extra R2000 you needed to spend to get everything just right for it not be better used in a gfx card or ram if you play games?

For other work I would understand, but I dont see that it has that big an advantage for that price tag to add it if you are only wanting to game and listen to Winamp... I mean to say, you can rather get yourself a 7800 for the money it costs you!!

I dont know, its just my view / perception... please, help me if I am wrong...

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 29 Mar 2006, 09:00

jamin_za wrote:
Cupis wrote:how much better is a RAID setup compared to a single setup?
Not much, and not worth the risks involved, IMO. Especially with striping.

What risk. You have to know what the hel you are doing before you play around with stuff like that. Then there is no risk. *You should get a hobby man*

Anyway you can get a big improvement in performance but it depends on the disks you put in and the CPU in your system. Yes duel core helps with the memory bandwidth load being placed on your system. It also helps to get disks with huge ammounts of cache. The best however is to drop the idea of SATA RAID and go SCSI. If you can afford 2 SATA2 200GB drives with 8Mb Cache then you can afford 2 Adaptec SCSI 200GB drives with 32MB Cache each. They rock even if you don't put them into a raid. Thing with SCSI is that the dedicated raid controlled handles the strain that your CPU would usually take and is generally more expensive. But if you desperately want that speed increase in disk access times then you can always lay off on buying that second 7800 for that SLI board of yours.

Anyway dude I feel your problem. Happined to me alot when I was alot younger and didn't know where I can poke my hands in and where not. Well that is life and that is how you learn. Next time make backups the proper way. Tape or DVD.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 29 Mar 2006, 11:24

If you can afford 2 SATA2 200GB drives with 8Mb Cache then you can afford 2 Adaptec SCSI 200GB drives with 32MB Cache each.

200GB SATA II drives cost +- R600 each. How much do 200GB SCSI drives cost? I was under the impression that even 40GB SCSI drives are expensive.

I had a SCSI drive and SCSI controller on an old 286 years ago, you had to put SIMMS in the controller. It was really fast for its time.