• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

RAID Stripe size

khanman125

khanman125

Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
27 (0.01/day)
System Specs
System Name The Kicker
Processor Intel Xeon E3-1230v2 @ 3.4ghz
Motherboard ASRock Z75
Cooling Zalman
Memory 16GB AMD DDR3
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 2070 AMP Extreme
Storage 120GB Intel SSD(boot drive) 2x 500GB WD Caviar RAID 0
Display(s) 3x AOC IPS 21.5's in
Case Antec 300
Audio Device(s) Integrated
Power Supply Thermaltake 650w
Mouse R.A.T. 7
Keyboard Razer
Software Windows 10 pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores What are benchmarks?
I'm in the process of upgrading my computer with 2 new drives in RAID 0. 2x WD 1TB SATA 6GBs. What is the optimal stripe size?
 
LOL I have that exact same setup I went with 128 but hey if someone has a better suggestion I just formatted so I have no reason not to change it.
 
Haha, does 128 give better performance?
 
Generally the default is the best value for all-around performance. For Intel RAID-0 that's 128KB for most chipsets, if not all of them. Newer Adaptec and LSI controllers have values of 256KB or greater as they're designed that way. So it's not so much that any specific value is better than another as it depends on the controller to a large extent. Deviation from the default is usually due to the array being used for a very specific purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xvi
Why do you want RAID0? If looking to optimize performance (and I see no other reason for RAID0) then if me, I sure would skip RAID0 with 2 HDs and spend that money on 1 SSD then blow the socks of any HD configuration you could come up with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xvi
AFAIK, 128KB is better for random access and 64KB is better for sustained file transfers.

I believe 128KB is generally considered the best for general use.
 
Storage capacity, speed improvements.


The only fault of RAID 0 beyond its intolerance to failure is the seek times.
 
I used to run RAID0 until I got an SSD. Much faster. Keep my OS on SSD, games, apps. and storage on the other drives.
 
Jizzler said:
Except that's incorrect information as I stated 3 posts under it. Stripe size is being confused with cluster.
Click to expand...
Then please provide here the information differentiating the two and provide examples as to better help the OP with his issue.
 
I have a Intel 120gb ssd for the OS, and want to use the 2 drives in RAID for storage.
 
Steevo said:
The only fault of RAID 0 beyond its intolerance to failure is the seek times.
Click to expand...
I think it is beyond intolerance.

With 2 drives in RAID 1 mirror, you lose 1 drive, you've lost zero data.
If you lose the RAID controller with RAID 1, you still have all your data.
With 2 separate drives, you lose 1 drive, you only lose the data on the failed drive.
With 2 drives in RAID 0 striped, you lose 1 drive, you've lost everything!
And if you lose the RAID controller RAID 2, you may lose everything!

Do you really need that kind of storage capacity in a striped array?

Years ago, striped RAID was the way to go for performance. But those days are gone. There are better options that give you speed, and fault tolerance (and capacity too). Including SSDs or SSD + HD (plus a backup plan).
 
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
I think this post in my RAID Arrays explained post may answer your question.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/raid-arrays-explained.43572/page-2#post-1058067
Click to expand...

Stripe size is the size of each chunk written to each physical drive. So if you have your logical RAID disk with 128k stripes, you will bop between the two disks that many times. If you have a file system with 64k blocks, you will write two block before bopping to the other disk. You don't "save space" from using smaller stripes. What he is confusing is those two things because if you write a 2k file with 64k blocks, you will eat up 64k, but the next 2k file you write will still be on the same stripe.

I think the only time when smaller stripes matter are with SSDs. Smaller stripes mean less superfuous writes to free memory because of the size of the stripes. It also means fewer delete cycles on cells that never had values stored to them. 4k blocks also seem to do great things for latency but bad things for bandwidth.

It seems that smaller stripes seem to benefit latency where bigger stripes seem to benefit bandwidth. Whether you're using SSDs or HDDs will determine the benefit from going either way. The kind of data you're storing will also impact performance based on your stripe size and disk type.
 
Untitled.jpg
Bill_Bright said:
I think it is beyond intolerance.

With 2 drives in RAID 1 mirror, you lose 1 drive, you've lost zero data.
If you lose the RAID controller with RAID 1, you still have all your data.
With 2 separate drives, you lose 1 drive, you only lose the data on the failed drive.
With 2 drives in RAID 0 striped, you lose 1 drive, you've lost everything!
And if you lose the RAID controller RAID 2, you may lose everything!

Do you really need that kind of storage capacity in a striped array?

Years ago, striped RAID was the way to go for performance. But those days are gone. There are better options that give you speed, and fault tolerance (and capacity too). Including SSDs or SSD + HD (plus a backup plan).
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of typing to say the same thing I said.

Also, RAID 0 still works well on HDD's, I have two 3TB drives on a RAID card that run all my games, pictures, movies, music, and much else. 200MBps read and write speed and yes I have backups of my pictures, music, and videos, games are on steam and can be redownloaded, but they are also backed up onto a separate HDD.
 
This leads to my next question, can you have multiple arrays on one controller?
 
khanman125 said:
This leads to my next question, can you have multiple arrays on one controller?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact both my RAID-0 with SSDs and RAID-5 with HDDs are both running off the X79 PCH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xvi
Depends on the controller but yeah. And for sure, many use mirror and striped on the same array for both speed and redundancy. But obviously, that takes more drives, thus costs more.
 
Steevo said:
View attachment 65992

Thats a lot of typing to say the same thing I said.

Also, RAID 0 still works well on HDD's, I have two 3TB drives on a RAID card that run all my games, pictures, movies, music, and much else. 200MBps read and write speed and yes I have backups of my pictures, music, and videos, games are on steam and can be redownloaded, but they are also backed up onto a separate HDD.
Click to expand...
RAID-5 is seriously underestimated. Consider this performance while still maintaining redundancy. If you like 200MB/s, you'll love 300MB/s and redundancy. :p
raid.PNG


Plus, four 1TB cost slightly less than two 3TB drives. If you have the RAID-5 capability it's the same capacity, added bandwidth, and less cost (if you consider 1TB WD Black versus 3TB WD Black.) Sometimes it's worth it to use smaller drives when using RAID but, once again, you need the controller and SATA ports to drive everything you want to use.

I personally love the RAID-0 and RAID-5 combo if you want to throw all of your eggs in one basket.
 
I love me a RAID5, but the card...... it only has 4 native ports (can use port expanders), and I was running my two SSD's in RAID0 before I killed one, and two HDD's in a separate array, and currently 6TB of primary storage is enough for me.
 
One of the problem with redundant arrays is the cost initially to set them up because of the extra drives needed. And you really need to buy any extra drives you MIGHT need in the years following at the same time and put them on the shelf to ensure compatibility when the time comes.

When I ran mirrored RAID in my main system years ago for my repair shop, I bought 3 identical drives, then every month, swapped in the spare and stored the removed drive in the safe deposit box at my bank. This way I always had a fairly recent off-site backup. Now I just copy to my old repurposed XP storage server in the basement and hope my house does not burn down.
 
I could care less about redundancy in my case, all my important files I back up onto an external drive and keep somewhere else. I'm mainly just looking for preformance.
 
Well, I trust "the cloud" would not lose my backups - but I still don't trust "the cloud" to keep my data secure from badguys. So I don't put anything important out there that contains any of my personal data, or that of my clients. There are just too many well funded organizations, often hostile government backed (China, N. Korea, Iran, etc.) actively trying to hack into those cloud services. And not just actively trying, but succeeding too. :( So nope! No cloud storage for anything I don't want shared, stolen or compromised.
 
Bill_Bright said:
And you really need to buy any extra drives you MIGHT need in the years following at the same time and put them on the shelf to ensure compatibility when the time comes.
Click to expand...

That is definitely not true. While it is ideal to use identical drives, it is certainly not required on any modern RAID controller. And with most modern controllers also supporting OCE and ORLM you don't even have to loose access to the array while you are adding the extra drive.

Bill_Bright said:
There are just too many well funded organizations, often hostile government backed (China, N. Korea, Iran, etc.) actively trying to hack into those cloud services. And not just actively trying, but succeeding too. :( So nope! No cloud storage for anything I don't want shared, stolen or compromised.
Click to expand...

They can hack into my cloud storage all they want, good luck to them cracking the 256-bit encryption on all of the files that are encrypted on my local machine before they are uploaded to the cloud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top