Run 2 7200.10 seagates in raid ( fastest 7200 rpm hd on market right now)
I've been preaching that in here for months. If raptor drives and RAID 0 setups are SOOO much faster, why am I always the first to load into a new map with a single 7200rpm drive?Defiance wrote:
Raptors in RAID would be good, but some less then known news.
RAID 0 did not post a significant boost in game load times, and only very minimal boosts in applications.
This testing was done by MaximumPC, a very credible magazine.
I can find the article if you wish, but if you need to buy a RAID card to get RAID, don't bother.
I'm sure it helps that I keep 3 partitions C: OS, D: programs, and E: data, but I think my CPU is the real key.
Now that I think about it I don't even disable my antivirus and I usually leave my emule running.
I've recently decided to stop using my two 160GB SATA hard disks in RAID1 because of a few annoying issues, like it relying on the processor for a lot of the work. (nvidia onboard motherboard RAID)
Loading maps is probably slightly slower, to be honest I haven't noticed. I'm still usually the first in on a map loading.
By the way, if you do decide to go with RAID0 then for cripes sake go with a proper hardware RAID card from someone like 3ware or adaptec. Because you will get little annoying issues with the software RAID ones like the onboard nvidia chipset ones.
It's probably best to get the Raptor, you need to remember with RAID0 you'll still have the same writing speed whilst with the Raptor you'll have faster writing speed.
At some point in the future I intend to go back to a RAID1 system, but for now i'm sticking with a single hard disk for my system drive. (in the future it'll probably be a hardware PCI-E sata card and Raptor drives)
EDIT: Sorry, I used RAID1. Mirrored RAID. If you're using RAID0 you may as well add in some redundancy in there and go RAID5. But then, that means 3 or more drives.
Loading maps is probably slightly slower, to be honest I haven't noticed. I'm still usually the first in on a map loading.
By the way, if you do decide to go with RAID0 then for cripes sake go with a proper hardware RAID card from someone like 3ware or adaptec. Because you will get little annoying issues with the software RAID ones like the onboard nvidia chipset ones.
It's probably best to get the Raptor, you need to remember with RAID0 you'll still have the same writing speed whilst with the Raptor you'll have faster writing speed.
At some point in the future I intend to go back to a RAID1 system, but for now i'm sticking with a single hard disk for my system drive. (in the future it'll probably be a hardware PCI-E sata card and Raptor drives)
EDIT: Sorry, I used RAID1. Mirrored RAID. If you're using RAID0 you may as well add in some redundancy in there and go RAID5. But then, that means 3 or more drives.
Last edited by EvilMonkeySlayer (2006-07-13 09:19:21)
Hitachi have one about as fast right now but I don't trust them as much as I do seagate.Canterwood wrote:
Run 2 7200.10 seagates in raid ( fastest 7200 rpm hd on market right now)
But the fastest would have to be the Gigabyte iRAM. It's a PCI powered S-ATA card with 4 DDR-DIMM slots.
It has the performace of the RAM you use with it.
But it forgets stuff if you unplug the PC for more than a day.
Last edited by BigglesPiP (2006-07-13 10:42:58)
Scsi
Can someone explain what the different Raid configurations are and what they mean/do? Also if you know what SATA is and that stuff. Basicly anything hard drive, how to partition, if I can do it now or if I hvae to do a format. And one more thing, if I have a pretty much stock computer from Hp, what is the most likely configuration I have?
3 most common forms of RAID:LockerFish wrote:
Can someone explain what the different Raid configurations are and what they mean/do? Also if you know what SATA is and that stuff. Basicly anything hard drive, how to partition, if I can do it now or if I hvae to do a format. And one more thing, if I have a pretty much stock computer from Hp, what is the most likely configuration I have?
RAID 0 (Striped): 2 hard drives, looks like 1 hard drive in "My Computer". Advantage is that it's almost like 1 hard drive with 2 read heads. OK Performance Increse.
RAID 1 (Mirrored): 2 Hard Drives containing the same data. Writing speed is unaffected but reading is twice as fast ("Idealy").
IBM ServeRaid 1E (Data Redundancy): Lots of hard drives, each peice of data appears on 2 of them. You can rip 1 hard drive from the system and it just keeps going.
Last edited by BigglesPiP (2006-07-13 12:06:39)
Huh!BigglesPiP wrote:
3 most common forms of RAID:LockerFish wrote:
Can someone explain what the different Raid configurations are and what they mean/do? Also if you know what SATA is and that stuff. Basicly anything hard drive, how to partition, if I can do it now or if I hvae to do a format. And one more thing, if I have a pretty much stock computer from Hp, what is the most likely configuration I have?
RAID 0 (Striped): 2 hard drives, looks like 1 hard drive in "My Computer". Advantage is that it's almost like 1 hard drive with 2 read heads. OK Performance Increse.
RAID 1 (Mirrored): 2 Hard Drives containing the same data. Writing speed is unaffected but reading is twice as fast ("Idealy").
IBM ServeRaid 1E (Data Redundancy): Lots of hard drives, each peice of data appears on 2 of them. You can rip 1 hard drive from the system and it just keeps going.
You forgot the most commonly used RAID, RAID-5.
I think this covers all things RAID related pretty well. (if you want detailed info)
You can also RAID, RAID..
For example, at work I set up a server for use by art department guys that uses 6 hard drives with a RAID 5+1 solution.
Meaning, there were two seperate RAID-5 drives (3 drives each) which I then mirrored with RAID-1 for extra redundancy.
It works like this:
RAID-5 Device 1: (/dev/md0)
HD1-| RAID-1 of Device 1 & 2 to get Device 3
HD2-|--------------------------------Device1--|
HD3-| |
|
Raid-5 Device 2: (/dev/md1) |------------Device3 (/dev/md3) This is our final one.
|
HD4-| |
HD5-|--------------------------------Device2--|
HD6-|
INstalled my new 74GB raptor, and it is FAST!
Is it so fast that it makes a cheap vietnamese whore blush?Timelord_ wrote:
INstalled my new 74GB raptor, and it is FAST!
those people that load so fast usually run lower settings... your settings will greatly affect your loading time. But i would get at least a 74 gig raptor, 34 is just too small.. expecially if your going to do any video editing. Id rate settings-ram-hd-processor in importance for loading time. You may be able to switch processor and hd.. i havnt seen anything to suggest that the processor affects loading greatly.
Vietnamese whore blush?? LOL!!
I have a total of 6 harddrives.
4 x Samsung 160gb sataIIs in a RAID 0, connected to an Areca 1210 (PCIex8). This raid card has 128megs of cache memory and a dedicated 500mhz processor. I only hit 2% CPU utilization, whereas if you connect to your motherboard, you will hit upwards of 15% or more (which is bad).
My other 2 drives are 200gb Spinpoint SataIIs. These are "scratch" disks, I use for downloads and such- plus I have my Temp Internet Files, "MY Documents", Temp directory, and Paging File (inside its own 4gb partition) mapped to these two disks.
I also have 2gigs of Mushkin Redline RAM (overclocked and running at 254mhz (DDR 500+) 2.5,3,3,7), and an AMD X2 4800 (watercooled and overclocked).
My Computer loads MUCH MUCH faster than everyone. In all the time I've played BF2, I've never even once seen anyone get into a new level faster than me. Every now and then someone will get into the game maybe 5 seconds after me, but for the most part I have the run of the place for some time.
Each game requires something different of your computer in order to load a level. Most of the time will be spent compiling the level, and assembling the data so you can see it on your computer- using RAM and CPU to do so. Interspersed witht the RAM and CPU time, though, is the actual physical loading off the harddrives. I built my computer to minimize any sort of waiting no matter what application I'm doing.
RAID 0 works well, but you should have a powerful computer to really see the benefits. Remember that just hooking up Harddrives to your motherboard and Raiding them will INCREASE your CPU utiliztion time, which will reduce your processing ability - and could be counterproductive- since the motherboard doesn't have a seperate CPU devoted just to RAID. Get a good RAID card like I did, several drives, and make sure your stocked-up on RAM and CPU and you'll be flying. If you just hook up an extra drive to your motherboard to RAID, you won't see much of a speed increase in level-loading.
4 x Samsung 160gb sataIIs in a RAID 0, connected to an Areca 1210 (PCIex8). This raid card has 128megs of cache memory and a dedicated 500mhz processor. I only hit 2% CPU utilization, whereas if you connect to your motherboard, you will hit upwards of 15% or more (which is bad).
My other 2 drives are 200gb Spinpoint SataIIs. These are "scratch" disks, I use for downloads and such- plus I have my Temp Internet Files, "MY Documents", Temp directory, and Paging File (inside its own 4gb partition) mapped to these two disks.
I also have 2gigs of Mushkin Redline RAM (overclocked and running at 254mhz (DDR 500+) 2.5,3,3,7), and an AMD X2 4800 (watercooled and overclocked).
My Computer loads MUCH MUCH faster than everyone. In all the time I've played BF2, I've never even once seen anyone get into a new level faster than me. Every now and then someone will get into the game maybe 5 seconds after me, but for the most part I have the run of the place for some time.
Each game requires something different of your computer in order to load a level. Most of the time will be spent compiling the level, and assembling the data so you can see it on your computer- using RAM and CPU to do so. Interspersed witht the RAM and CPU time, though, is the actual physical loading off the harddrives. I built my computer to minimize any sort of waiting no matter what application I'm doing.
RAID 0 works well, but you should have a powerful computer to really see the benefits. Remember that just hooking up Harddrives to your motherboard and Raiding them will INCREASE your CPU utiliztion time, which will reduce your processing ability - and could be counterproductive- since the motherboard doesn't have a seperate CPU devoted just to RAID. Get a good RAID card like I did, several drives, and make sure your stocked-up on RAM and CPU and you'll be flying. If you just hook up an extra drive to your motherboard to RAID, you won't see much of a speed increase in level-loading.
Last edited by [mcp]eltorrente (2006-07-13 16:03:44)
raptor is more expensive than raid... and theyre noisy. RAID FTW
Well, I gotta say, I am very impressed with the 74gb performance of the raptor.....
WELL... in THAT case.... Here's what I do for optimal throughput on moviemaking:Timelord_ wrote:
Well, I also do some video editing and photoshop work too....... So 100 bones aint so bad.
Have windows on one disk. Disable virtual memory. Have at least 2GB of physical memory, 4 is better.
Get a nice "oldfashioned" RAID adaptor (do NOT for the love of anything holy use any onboard raid controllers your board might have) that supports a memory upgrade... I like the SX4000 myself, it can take 512 MB of mem easily, remember to configure the card for fast readthrough. Get 4 old (but make sure it's the fast ones) P ATA disks and make a raid 5. With a full 4 disks, your amount of data redundancy writethrough is much smaller, so writing to this array is going to be MONSTER fast.. but reading will be even better. Put your application and anything else you'll only READ from, on that array. And for the piece de resistance: Get a SEOND raid controller... A cheap one will do, preferably a SATA-II raid controller, and two SATA-II disks, as fast as you can find. Put them in striped mode for fast write access. Put any files on this array that you want to write to often (config files are ok to have on the appliation disk), like maybe your work files. If you have troubles getting a second raid controller because of space, money or whatever, a single sata-II disk will do fine, but you miss out on a few% of performance.
This setup is SWEEEEEEEEET for making 3D movies and animations. And it provides the additional benefit of providing a large array with data redundancy, so you can use that for backups aswell. And best of all: The RAID 5 tech is now so "old" that you can get it for peanuts. And I dont understand why... My array is faster than a sata-II disk, larger, and has redundancy. The only downside I see is increased power usage.
For Battlefield 2, this rig is also nice. I can load a map and be ready to play in 10-20 sec roughly. All depending on the map, and how well the cache hits are doing etc. etc.
I have 4 Hd 36gb Rapton on RAID 0!!!!!!
That's what I'm doing now{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Yeah, that's what I'm going to be doing pretty soon...stryyker wrote:
Raptors in RAID
One of these days I will drop a few more bucks and get another raptor and RAID em up!
Go for a raptor 76gb, I have one, runs great.
Get 2 Raptor 34s and run 'em in RAID 0
Already have one. Gonna get a second!
RAPTOR sounds alot cooler.
Lol, you would be better off buying a G4 Mac.Twist wrote:
WELL... in THAT case.... Here's what I do for optimal throughput on moviemaking:Timelord_ wrote:
Well, I also do some video editing and photoshop work too....... So 100 bones aint so bad.
Have windows on one disk. Disable virtual memory. Have at least 2GB of physical memory, 4 is better.
Get a nice "oldfashioned" RAID adaptor (do NOT for the love of anything holy use any onboard raid controllers your board might have) that supports a memory upgrade... I like the SX4000 myself, it can take 512 MB of mem easily, remember to configure the card for fast readthrough. Get 4 old (but make sure it's the fast ones) P ATA disks and make a raid 5. With a full 4 disks, your amount of data redundancy writethrough is much smaller, so writing to this array is going to be MONSTER fast.. but reading will be even better. Put your application and anything else you'll only READ from, on that array. And for the piece de resistance: Get a SEOND raid controller... A cheap one will do, preferably a SATA-II raid controller, and two SATA-II disks, as fast as you can find. Put them in striped mode for fast write access. Put any files on this array that you want to write to often (config files are ok to have on the appliation disk), like maybe your work files. If you have troubles getting a second raid controller because of space, money or whatever, a single sata-II disk will do fine, but you miss out on a few% of performance.
This setup is SWEEEEEEEEET for making 3D movies and animations. And it provides the additional benefit of providing a large array with data redundancy, so you can use that for backups aswell. And best of all: The RAID 5 tech is now so "old" that you can get it for peanuts. And I dont understand why... My array is faster than a sata-II disk, larger, and has redundancy. The only downside I see is increased power usage.
For Battlefield 2, this rig is also nice. I can load a map and be ready to play in 10-20 sec roughly. All depending on the map, and how well the cache hits are doing etc. etc.
Seriously man, that is a serious setup you are talking. My head hurts even trying to comprehend putting that together. +1
I'm runing 2 10k 76Gb raptors in raid 0 and yes, they do load somewhat faster than when I only had one, but the difference hardly justifies the price. I also have a FX60 though, I am unshure how much load speed is from that.
Bottom line here is that there is a difference, but at what price is it worth it?
Bottom line here is that there is a difference, but at what price is it worth it?