Raid 0 in a G5...

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
to all



i am thinking of upgrading my system and am wondering about setting up a RAID 0 configuration. does anyone here have any experience with this?

does a RAID 0 significantly improve speed in graphics apps? or would just a faster hard drive be an answer (10,000 rpm)?



thanks



ghi

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ghiangelo

    to all



    i am thinking of upgrading my system and am wondering about setting up a RAID 0 configuration. does anyone here have any experience with this?

    does a RAID 0 significantly improve speed in graphics apps? or would just a faster hard drive be an answer (10,000 rpm)?



    thanks



    ghi




    I am currently running RAID 0 'Striping' on my Powermac G5 Dual 2.0Ghz. I bought an exact duplicate of the Segate Baracudda that comes with the G5, 7200 RPM 8MB Cache. I ran XBench before and after and my results are listed below.



    SINGLE DISK TEST

    Results\t101.92\t

    \tSystem Info\t\t

    \t\tXbench Version\t\t1.1.3

    \t\tSystem Version\t\t10.3.4 (7L32)

    \t\tPhysical RAM\t\t512 MB

    \t\tModel\t\tPowerMac7,3

    \t\tProcessor\t\tPowerPC G5x2 @ 2.00 GHz

    \t\t\tL1 Cache\t\t64K (instruction), 32K (data)

    \t\t\tL2 Cache\t\t512K @ 2.00 GHz

    \t\t\tBus Frequency\t\t1 GHz

    \t\tVideo Card\t\tATY,RV360

    \t\tDrive Type\t\tST3160023AS

    \tDisk Test\t101.92\t

    \t\tSequential\t103.46\t

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t130.23\t54.28 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t108.02\t44.24 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t76.82\t12.16 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t114.84\t46.40 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    \t\tRandom\t100.41\t

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t94.86\t1.42 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t99.85\t22.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t96.23\t0.64 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t112.53\t23.16 MB/sec [256K blocks]





    RAID DISK TEST

    Results\t146.03\t

    \tSystem Info\t\t

    \t\tXbench Version\t\t1.1.3

    \t\tSystem Version\t\t10.3.4 (7L32)

    \t\tPhysical RAM\t\t512 MB

    \t\tModel\t\tPowerMac7,3

    \t\tProcessor\t\tPowerPC G5x2 @ 2.00 GHz

    \t\t\tL1 Cache\t\t64K (instruction), 32K (data)

    \t\t\tL2 Cache\t\t512K @ 2.00 GHz

    \t\t\tBus Frequency\t\t1 GHz

    \t\tVideo Card\t\tATY,RV360

    \t\tDrive Type\t\tPowerMac G5

    \tDisk Test\t146.03\t

    \t\tSequential\t165.71\t

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t293.49\t122.34 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t259.21\t106.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t76.70\t12.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t260.68\t105.33 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    \t\tRandom\t130.54\t

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t169.63\t2.54 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Write\t139.29\t31.41 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t103.31\t0.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    \t\t\tUncached Read\t126.76\t26.09 MB/sec [256K blocks]



    Both tests were on the exact same setup with 512MB RAM, with the same programs installed and nothing else running. I have had this setup for about 7 months now and wouldn't trade it for anything. I have noticed a difference between that and 1GB RAM extra.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    thanks



    i have similar set up as you - dual 2 Ghz and 2 GBs of RAM



    so the results of striping 2 HDDs works well then?
  • Reply 3 of 13
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    XBench is sort of deceptive, as it'll give better scores and leave out some large advantages, such as saving and retrieving of huge files.



    http://barefeats.com is the place to go.
  • Reply 4 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    RAID 0 isn't really recommended. The performance ehancements aren't significant enough IMO to warrant the risk potential of losing all your data should one drive fail.



    I think a 10K Raptor would give you more overall benefits.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    RAID 0 isn't really recommended. The performance ehancements aren't significant enough IMO to warrant the risk potential of losing all your data should one drive fail.



    I think a 10K Raptor would give you more overall benefits.




    I would argue that if you bought drives with consecutive serial numbers, used the same power supply and same enclosure, the chance of failure on one drive or all drives is about the same.



    Almost always, the problem with drives happened in the factory, and it happened to 500 drives in a row. That's just the way it works I guess.



    And raptors aren't quite fast enough for some things.



    I have a 75GB raptor, a 2 drive raid-0, and another single HD, I find booting off the raptor is best, and working off the raid-0 is best.
  • Reply 6 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    My druthers would be





    7200rpm drives with 16MB of cache

    SATA II with NCQ support.



    I'd love it if Powermacs came with 3 drive bays so that a mini RAID5 setup could be achieved. Looking for huge speed gains in RAID0 is pointless for the effort involved unless you have a decent controller card and pretty fast drives. This isn't coming from me but rather reports from Storagereview.com and Anandtech.com that show that overall RAID0 isn't worth the effort if speed is your primary goal.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    corvettecorvette Posts: 561member
    The Maxtor 300GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model 6B300S0 with 16mb cache is supposed to be the new cheif.



    It's only marginally slower than the raptor, yet it offers amazing capacity.



    Raptor = 74gb for ~ $175

    Maxtor = 300gb for ~ $200



    newegg link to maxtor



    maxtor vs raptor review & shootout
  • Reply 8 of 13
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    anyone who uses maxtor almost deserves what they get



    Seagate, hitachi/IBM, and Western digital are the only hard drives you should buy, the rest are usually not worth using.. unless you don't like your data.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    anyone who uses maxtor almost deserves what they get



    Seagate, hitachi/IBM, and Western digital are the only hard drives you should buy, the rest are usually not worth using.. unless you don't like your data.




    That's interesting. All I have ever used (Mac/PC) are Maxtor drives and never any problems. I have 3 Maxtors in my G4 tower right now. I built a pc tower for my bro-in-law half a year ago and I used a WD drive at the time because sharkeyextreme had been bragging them up, and after 2 buggy days it died. Needless to say it has a Maxtor in it now and working great.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    mikefmikef Posts: 698member
    Maxtor has never had a run of drives like the IBM Deathstars...
  • Reply 11 of 13
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    anyone who uses maxtor almost deserves what they get



    Seagate, hitachi/IBM, and Western digital are the only hard drives you should buy, the rest are usually not worth using.. unless you don't like your data.




    I must have owned 50+ hard disk drive mechanisms in the last few years, and I had never had a single problem with any of the drives until the two WD Raptors I bought died on me (so much for Enterprise Class reliability).



    Of those 50+ mechanisms, I'd say that 6 were maybe Seagates (usually Baraccudas, six were Western Digitals, four were IBMs and the rest were all Maxtors.



    It's interesting, that out off all the drives, it should be the two most expensive drives (expensive by a long, long margin) that boast "Enterprise Class" performance and reliability that died on me. They both died on separate occassions, and in different ways.



    I'm now sitting with two of the most "Recertified" drives that money can buy, and I'm too scared to put anything valuable on them.



    I'd personally plump for Maxtors everytime.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    I can install the two Raptors as RAID 0 and run tests on them if anybody is interested?



    What test software should I use?
  • Reply 13 of 13
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    You trade off size with the 10,000 RPM drives. With a RAID 0 array,you do exactly double your chances of HD failure, so that has to be considered. I suggest if you're going with RAID 0 you impliment an iron-clad backup strategy. Well, you should do that anyway, but...



    Here's what I did with my G4 at work-- I had 2 80 GB drives, one for primary use, the other for backup, using CCC to clone it weekly. When I ran out of space, I installed a third drive (SATA on a PCI card) with 160 GB capacity. I then made a RAID 0 out of the two 80 GB drives, and use them for my primary drive, backing up to the 160 GB SATA drive weekly. It has been a breath of new life for my QS Dual 1.0. (the RAID is substantially faster that the SATA drive).
Sign In or Register to comment.