From 16mb Cache Raid to Raptor

ChrisUlrich · 09-08-2006, 02:28 PM

Raid was noticibly quicker when opening folders with tons of files in it (My MP3 folder).

2 250gb 7200rpm 16mb Cache 3.0gb SATA Harddrives in Raid 0
74gb Raptor 10,000 rpm 16mb Cache ATA150

I feel the Raid was quicker

That supposed to be?

SirKenin · 09-08-2006, 02:32 PM

Subjective analysis such as "I feel this" and "it seemed like this" is completely worthless. No respectable review I have ever read goes "this one appears quicker, therefore it's better". You need benchmarks, and benchmarks tell us that the RAID 0 array is not faster in most things.

ChrisUlrich · 09-08-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirKenin

Subjective analysis such as "I feel this" and "it seemed like this" is completely worthless. No respectable review I have ever read goes "this one appears quicker, therefore it's better". You need benchmarks, and benchmarks tell us that the RAID 0 array is not faster in most things.

Um... the noticable differences in load time tells me different

SirKenin · 09-08-2006, 03:14 PM

And you measured them how exactly? I've used RAID 0 extensively, so hopefully you are prepared to provide me with specific details, because like I said, subjective analysis just doesn't cut it. I've used it, I've seen the numbers. Many times.

ChrisUlrich · 09-08-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirKenin

And you measured them how exactly? I've used RAID 0 extensively, so hopefully you are prepared to provide me with specific details, because like I said, subjective analysis just doesn't cut it. I've used it, I've seen the numbers. Many times.

Going from instantaneous load to waiting 2-3 seconds. That's not subjective... that's pretty clear cut and obvious. I don't care what benchmarks you've seen. I am telling you how my computer is acting and was pre/post Raid and Raptor setups.

Seeing that little flashlight searching back and forth when oping a 10gb+ folder (Not even close to being filled) while the Raid setup had 0 load time.

Say what you want about what you did... I am telling that mine is different. Whether or not I had a properly setup/super raid or I have a poor Raptor... it's happening.

Oh yea... the 300 decrease in my 3D06 Mark score as well.

SirKenin · 09-08-2006, 04:19 PM

Well, you obviously don't know what you're doing then I guess. I have a 74GB Raptor in this rig. I don't wait two or three seconds for folders to open, so I have no idea what you did wrong there.

Anyways, everybody here has seen the benchmarks, but if it makes you feel any better you're entitled to think whatever you want. I didn't realize there was anyone left who put any value whatsoever in subjective opinions when it comes to hardware evaluations, but maybe you should start up your own website. You could review motherboards based on the color and the layout of the caps and harddrives based on the style of the case and how quick you think they load.

Incidentally, someone on this board was trying to get people to post benchmarks of their own RAID 0 concoctions as well as single drive setups in a feeble effort to compare. The only problem is that if he tried doing that on a review site he would get laughed off the internet. You have to use identical test conditions to make any valid comparisons..... So you can see where that "test" was flawed before it even started.

ChrisUlrich · 09-08-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirKenin

Well, you obviously don't know what you're doing then I guess. I have a 74GB Raptor in this rig. I don't wait two or three seconds for folders to open, so I have no idea what you did wrong there.

Anyways, everybody here has seen the benchmarks, but if it makes you feel any better you're entitled to think whatever you want. I didn't realize there was anyone left who put any value whatsoever in subjective opinions when it comes to hardware evaluations, but maybe you should start up your own website. You could review motherboards based on the color and the layout of the caps and harddrives based on the style of the case and how quick you think they load.

Incidentally, someone on this board was trying to get people to post benchmarks of their own RAID 0 concoctions as well as single drive setups in a feeble effort to compare. The only problem is that if he tried doing that on a review site he would get laughed off the internet. You have to use identical test conditions to make any valid comparisons..... So you can see where that "test" was flawed before it even started.

Do you have a serious bug up your ass? I'd smack the piss out of you if you ever said that shit to me in person. Don't make wise remarks over the internet. Although i'm doing the same right now... you're still ridiculous.

I never made a review based on values or being subjective. I never even made a review you stupid bastard. Look at my original post. See the Question Mark...? If you're not sure, it is in fact the "?" looking symbol.

I wasn't sure on the results I was supposed to be seeing although I was sure Raid worked better in Windows based operating crap. Apparently that's not true... so instead of just telling me that you gotta go ahead and be a dick.

How is a harddrive not setup properly? If Windows is running, no random shutdowns, nothing is broken... what else is there to worry about? Windows was just installed and everything was just swapped over from the Raid to the Raptor.

If I opened the folder, back out... then double click again! Then it's pretty much instant. THe first time though takes 2 seconds just about.

SirKenin · 09-08-2006, 04:51 PM

You finished?

I don't know what you're doing wrong. I told you that. The reason it's loading instantaneously the second time is that the data is already in cache. Maybe your board doesn't support TCQ for all I know. I can't optimize a machine over the internet. What I DO know is that if you do it right that Raptor should smoke RAID 0 (which isn't even an array. I hate the fact that they call it RAID).

09-08-2006, 02:28 PM	#1 (permalink)
ChrisUlrich Platinum Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 667	From 16mb Cache Raid to Raptor Raid was noticibly quicker when opening folders with tons of files in it (My MP3 folder). 2 250gb 7200rpm 16mb Cache 3.0gb SATA Harddrives in Raid 0 74gb Raptor 10,000 rpm 16mb Cache ATA150 I feel the Raid was quicker That supposed to be? __________________ Kandalf LCS (Full Tower) Case with Water Cooling EVGA 132-CK-NF79-A1 790i Motherboard Q9450 @ 3.5 1.26v- 720w Enermax PSU 2 x 250gb 7200rpm, 16mb Cache, SATA 3GB Harddrives. 1 74GB Raptor for Windows 2gb of OCZ DDR3 PC20000 EVGA 8800GTS 512mb (G92) 755/1030 X-Fi Fatality Sound Card and Altec Lansing 5100 Speakers Lite on it DVD/CD-RW w/ Lightscribe Sweet UV and Blue Lights for Water Cooling and... nothing :-) 24" Acer P234W and a 20.1" Viewsonic VX2025WM Monitor

09-08-2006, 04:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	Well, you obviously don't know what you're doing then I guess. I have a 74GB Raptor in this rig. I don't wait two or three seconds for folders to open, so I have no idea what you did wrong there. Anyways, everybody here has seen the benchmarks, but if it makes you feel any better you're entitled to think whatever you want. I didn't realize there was anyone left who put any value whatsoever in subjective opinions when it comes to hardware evaluations, but maybe you should start up your own website. You could review motherboards based on the color and the layout of the caps and harddrives based on the style of the case and how quick you think they load. Incidentally, someone on this board was trying to get people to post benchmarks of their own RAID 0 concoctions as well as single drive setups in a feeble effort to compare. The only problem is that if he tried doing that on a review site he would get laughed off the internet. You have to use identical test conditions to make any valid comparisons..... So you can see where that "test" was flawed before it even started. Last edited by SirKenin; 09-08-2006 at 04:22 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
74gb raptor raid or single?	djray77	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	14	07-18-2006 07:40 PM
8MB Cache or 16MB	SpeedDevil817	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	1	05-06-2006 07:38 PM
is the wd raptor 1 better than the maxtor 10 16mb?	davie23223	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	9	10-20-2005 04:32 PM
raptor or raid?	justmetk	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	4	10-11-2005 04:31 PM
Hdd 101	Praetor	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	7	04-04-2005 12:54 AM

09-08-2006, 02:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	Subjective analysis such as "I feel this" and "it seemed like this" is completely worthless. No respectable review I have ever read goes "this one appears quicker, therefore it's better". You need benchmarks, and benchmarks tell us that the RAID 0 array is not faster in most things.

09-08-2006, 03:14 PM	#4 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	And you measured them how exactly? I've used RAID 0 extensively, so hopefully you are prepared to provide me with specific details, because like I said, subjective analysis just doesn't cut it. I've used it, I've seen the numbers. Many times.

09-08-2006, 04:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	You finished? I don't know what you're doing wrong. I told you that. The reason it's loading instantaneously the second time is that the data is already in cache. Maybe your board doesn't support TCQ for all I know. I can't optimize a machine over the internet. What I DO know is that if you do it right that Raptor should smoke RAID 0 (which isn't even an array. I hate the fact that they call it RAID).