HDD RAID (0) vs HDD | is it worth ? | Real-time benchmarks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2017
- SIngle Hard drive (HDD) vs 2 x hdd in raid (0) - Is it worth installing two 7200 rpm drives in raid 0 ? Tested - Application, gaming loading times and gaming performance (fps) - side by side comparison !
Benchmark List
Windows 10 booting speed
application loading times
file transfer (copy & write)
game loading - 4 games
gaming performance - 4 games
crystal disk mark
Test computer details
CPU - Ryzen 1600X
Motherboard - B350M pro vdh msi
RAM - 16gb x 2 dual channel
ssd for recording - sandisk x400
HDD for testing - sea gate 1 TB 7200 RPM
GPU - geforce gtx 1060 6gb zotac mini
powersupply corsair 650m tx
OS - windows 10
vmreviews
vmreview80@gmail.com - Наука та технологія
Probably there is something wrong with this system shown above,
You all guys can be sure that RAID 0 WORTH and a LOT!
I don't know what's wrong with this guy's raid, but my two 1tb WD Blue 7200RPM can copy files up to 350 MB/s so, don't trust this video and go for a raid 0 if you want the performance boost!!!
5400RPM in raid zero good??
@@conankun2993 better than a single 5400 it is.
@@conankun2993 i have 3 5400rpm in RAID0 and you can expect the performance to scale linearly, so 3 times the performance of a single 5400rpm drive
@@minbcraft I want to get 2 5400rpm hdd in raid 0, will it be noisy?
@@marcosundah4698 i cannot hear my hard drives unless i put my ear like on the hard drive cover, so no. Also this doesn't really improve random performance much, but sequential performance scales linearly in my experience.
I just finished setting up a 4 HDD Raid 0 Array after trying 4 different configurations, First thing is this is about right when you use 2 HDD's... you get about a 20% boost in sequential read/write speed at the cost of lower random access speed (longer boot time) as the video shows. For Raid 0 to shine you want 3-4 HDD's (3 was a noticable improvement in read/write and file transfers, installing programs etc) I ended up using 4 HDD's using 16k stripe size (this sacrifies some sequential read speed for better random access and better 4k read/write speed) Now it really shines and is faster than a single HDD at booting and much faster for loading large files etc.
Oh great ! Thanks for sharing your experience, here.
That's so sick. Pure curiosity, how did it hold up? Seems like a crazy setup these days.
I dunno...
I got a near 100% boost in read/write speeds setting up RAID 0 with 2x drives back in the day when you had to set RAID up in the BIOS.
I'm assuming you set your RAID up through Windows. That's software RAID... or at least it always used to be. It's not REAL RAID.
But, yes, it does increase access speeds.
Games loaded twice as fast... everything was twice as fast. Windows loaded twice as fast. Some people are afraid of the BIOS, and I get it, not everyone has the same amount of experience.
But I can only guess you set your "RAID" up in Windows if you didn't get 95%+ gains in read/write speeds when going from 1x disk to 2x disks for RAID 0.
Unless you did RAID 1 and then... well yeah, of course you didn't gain speed. That's mirroring.
also 4 times the price. hopefully the worth is somewhere in that range, looking better these days
Considering how much time you spent testing fps (which everyone knows wouldn't be affected by RAID0) I'm not convinced that you even set it up properly.
The games in which he tested would actually see increased fps from higher r/w speeds or at the very least a more consistent frametime chart. Battlefield 3/4/1/5 all continue to load large chunks of textures past the loading screen, resulting in choppiness in both single player and multiplayer after spawning initially. Witcher 3 and GTA loads the map on the fly meaning the hard drive has to constantly load the data which actually sees gains in fps with higher drive speeds.
@@Joaquim-nz9vp Lol did you even read my comment? You absolutely see gains in open world games like witcher and GTA. Even if average fps stays the same, which it doesnt due to the complete elimination of frame drops, you will have much much less stutter. The way witcher and gta5 loads means loading stutter can happen minorly every few seconds and majorly every few mins. Average framerate is definitely affected.
@@Joaquim-nz9vp its true that storage speed doesnt increase or decrease fps in gaming
but i did get less stutter when i play games on ssd which happens increasing the "average" fps
(sorry for the weird english)
He did not
@@D3R3bel If your game can't load textures in time it will lock up not drop frames.
Idk about you all but after i did raid0 my games load insanly faster then before like cs:go took about 1 minutes to load now it's done in 10-20 seconds.Btw people raid0 won't make any difference to your FPS it will only help with the loading time of application and games.
Sir Lancelthot Theoretically it should help with texture loading too.
It might help a bit with frame rates I repeat A BIT because of its faster loading. Frames are also being loaded by your hard drive also everything you see in the screen.
You'reBrotha Nigga What I like about raid 0 on SSDs over HDDs is that it’s still very reliable. And as long as you save everything on an external backup drive then there really isn’t much to worry about. That and SSDs are just plain faster. It’s a win/win over a HDD and in 2019 I heard that the prices of NAND SSDs are going to be way cheaper, like $80 for a 1TB NAND SSD. Pretty awesome news to hear.
Thank you for this. It's a helpful tip.
It will decrease stutter if hdd speed is the issue
This is bs people, my son and I have identical systems except I have raid 0. There is a big difference in game load times and in game map loading. I hate using his pc.
.lol
so why is it bs then? Thats exactly what he is showing.
This Benchmark looks like he is benchmarking 1x 7200rpm SHDD to 2x 5200rpm HDDs
I would agree, as it appears to be two completely different computers as opposed to running the test on the same exact machine as a control.
He is using the same pc.
but he clearly stated what he used? Is he a liar?
Do you have a raid card or are you using the motherboard ?
In old pc without nvme port, i connected two ssd 2,5 inch on sata port, i mount one raid 0 , i have 1000 mo on read speed ... perfect for the game (Doom 2016, Doom eternal, Andromeda) ,Opérating system and application.
you havnt set it up right. i have 3min loading time vs 4mins on gta v. 2vs 3 on kingdom come. its around a 33% decrease in load times.
Oh, and a final advice, I had to give to you all, using in a pc 1 disk, is not redundant, two disks, same size in raid 1 (mirror) is expensive (one disk does actually add no space just fault tolerance to the system. Using two in raid 0, striping, means that the system writes to both disks, getting only a little bit speed profit, according to the fact if one disk fails, the data on both disks are unusable, therefor reinstalling another harddisk, in the stripeset, and then reinstalling the complete system, is no win. When you use raid 3, 5 or higher, the complete installation is spread over more disks and puts a parity over all disks, when in a raid 5 config one disk fails, take that one out, place another and the system can restore on the fly without data loss. Besides the fact that there is a speed win in this configuration, I think you can all start with a minimum of three disks, so three times 500GB gives a fair amount of space, speed and fault tolerance....
In my server I have 4 times 4TB on a hardware raid 5, and I am happy with those 12 TB very safe, fast and ...... fill that in yourself...
But, the maker of this vid wanted to know if there is a speed win on raid 0, yes, there is, but put more in it, choose for a better and safer raid than striping.....
Oh, and I would love to see the same test on SSD in raid 0.... a few years back I saw this vid about a test between the falling of an object and an action on a computer with 12 SSD in raid 0, the computer was faster than from a one or two floors up falling object...... go look for it.... (if I find it.... ill let you know...) (video is nowhere to be found)
That was awesome explanation. Very useful. Yes raid 5 makes more sense
My 3x 1TB raid 0 is at 600MBs and differs not that much in gaming load times compared to my 970evo 1tb. No idea what is with this guys raid 0 settings...
Oh, I forgot to tell, take more than 2 disks and the speed increases significantly.... just two disk is a few seconds win win, so not that much.....
Well this benchmarks are not relative for Raid tests on Read/Write because the drives are Seagate SkyHawk drives which are optimized for surveillance ( 24/7 Write)and not Desktop use which is what most people use...
One thing I keep hearig people say about RAID0 is that if 1 drive of your array fails, you lose everything. Well if your single drive (JBOD) fails you also lose everything. Take the performance boost of RAID0.
yes, but likelihood of RAID0 failing goes up with each extra drive added to it.
@@user-ky9qn4pg3w Correct, the more hard drives that are added in Raid 0 the likelihood of something failing goes up
@@conenubi701 one can easily reason that every time you double the amount of drives, you half the expected life expectancy. 2.5% of every hard drive will have a critical failure at one point, and that number turns to 5% with raid 0 2 drive config.
You missed the results in the description
raid 0 varys on each system. i expect to see alot difference between single and 2 hdd's. depends how the user sets it up. im still with raid 0 i know it has lots more advantages than a single drive. infact im gonna raid 2 10k veloceraptor drives
That's the Dream
@@adeebhumayun3229 not really, one SSD is way faster and cheaper nowadays.
@@eatyassy6568 yes but, its like that classic build u always wanted.. I always wanted to raid a wd black just to .. uk feel good
i have 2 ssd in raid 0 it goes pretty good 980gb size. but i have to manage steam games n annoying. I got 3 10k enterprise 600gb velociraptor in cupboard. thinking of raid zero. 1 for using them up . 2 because i then get roughly 1.8TB then i can use the single ssd as a large virtual drive. also i had 2 x dead ssd...they die instantly hdd usually give u warnings when they start dying at least.
I aggree ..its not about the speed....its like driving a toyota or a alfa romeo@@adeebhumayun3229
Something wrong with your system. I have RAID0 on Z77 chipset with 2 WD RE 2TB drives and it's great for my virtual machines.
Linear read speed around 380 MB/s.
Random read around 2.5 MB/s.
So check your stripe size (128 and more for RAID0), maybe it's a problem in your configuration.
compare game loading times :D you might be surprised how little there is in it.
Revisited this old vid. I think the numbers would shown a bigger difference with a much faster CPU- this was a Ryzen 1600X way back when.
Can i ask something? If i have got 1 HDD is it possible to raid this HDD's disks between them?
I know that a HDD have got lots of disks inside of them so, if it's possible to raid those disks between them this would give a high speed to HDD.
Raid setup needs atleast two disks with identical capacity/speed.
Are you talking about platters??? Lol you mad. You need two HDDS for a RAID.
There's only one reading head in the hard drive, you can't read more than off of one platter simultaneosly.
I think he meant ssd vs hdd raid 0 since he wrote ssd for testing in his description
Unless he changed it, id have to disagree:
The only mention of an SSD is under "Test Computer", where it just says SSD is for recording.
Then aside from saying HDD is for testing, it says "HDD VS RAID 0 HDDs" 2 or 3 times elsewhere in title/description.
If I am going to raid 0 two HDD it is only for storage. Obviously I am going to run my OS on a large SSD separately from my raid setup for better performance.
Definitely worth for your purpose
Thank you for the video. Probably the drives are not optimized or defragmented. That's why thedifference is small, actual difference should be around 1.5-2x. Even like this, the results are still a win for the RAID. Games even have a slight FPS increase. Combine that with double amount of storage space, it all looks good :)
Thanks for the comment, yes few days back I configured new raid setup and now difference is very noteciable
@@OdinHardware would you mind making a tutorial video of how to set it up. I'm planning to make either a 1TB SSD + 2TB HDD setup. I already have the 2Tb HDD and have occasional texture streaming problems in open world games. However having a 120GB SDD for Windows + 2x 2TB HDD seems a better option as double HDD speed would be more than I need for a gaming-only pc. The only problem I have read is some people say Windows 10's software RAID is not supporting RAID 0, others say the opposite. So I'm confused. My motherboard doesn't have RAID support, either. Basically I'm afraid of buying a second hard drive, only to find out I can't RAID :)
@@gamerhobbit Yes definitely will do soon (within week, as already occupied with other committed tests). I prefer raid setup through bios instead of windows as it is very simple and effective.
Hi. Could we make Raid 0 with HDd in Caddy DVD Slot laptop?
Thx
It looks like he may have just added an extra drive in RAID 0 without actually having any data on the new drive used for RAID, which would mean only one of the drives can actually seek for data. Which of course renders RAID 0 useless, it's benefit is in being able to have 2 drives seek simultaneously. All the tests appeared to be within margin of error for 1 HDD's performance
You got it wrong !
@@OdinHardware If you say so.
But still going by testimonials from other people. RAID 0 is definitely faster than this
*Ooooh--barrrricudaaaa* :) im in the middle of my own sea gate mutation
It seems that RAID is slower on startup but is better at reading and writing to the disk by a noticeable amount. I run Linux and the raid configuration is installed so I'm lucky lol
No it is faster in everything instead of using one disk.
@@awakenedsoul2638 Yeah, ya gotta set your RAID up in the BIOS to have real RAID. Setting it up in Windows creates some kind of software RAID set up.
I've tried both. When I set up RAID 0 with 2xHDD's in the BIOS, ALL speeds doubled. Seek times increased slightly, but not double.
@@JustAGuy85
It is faster on boot up. I do not understand why he said it is slow but fast in read and write?
This video can’t believe actually should be fast than single hdd my 7200 2hdd raid0 read about 380mb/sec
Thank you! I have been looking for a video like this for some time. Would the results be similar if you used wd discs instead?
Thanks for leaving your feedback. The new seagate barracuda drives are much improved over last generation models and should be slightly superior than wd models (blue & green)
bios ow windows raid?
like many have said, I use raid 0 for games and loads much faster than my brothers computer running only 1hdd. when a 4tb sdd drive is under 100 bucks than I will get one,until it does I will stick too what I have. this guys raid 0 setup is flawed, something is wrong. but nice video work.
thanks for your comment. Will redo my test soon !
I have an laptop. what if i OMEN by HP - 17-an012dx only have room for one HDD? It's 7200RPM what can I do to speed it up? Just add more ram 12GB of ram? I can put 16GB but there is a way to put 32GB 2133GHZ ram what do you guys think?
Replace that had with an ssd
Everyone DOES realize he is using software RAID, right? That is why there is no increase in speeds... It don't matter if it's a security cam drive optimized for writing or what it is, adding a second drive in RAID 0 SHOULD increase speeds across the array! If he was using hardware RAID 0, speeds would be 30-75% faster depending on the controller used and drive models.
But hardware raid is not possible in most
Mainstream motherboard
Well 2 hdd in raid 0 is fine but I have 3HDD in raid5 I lost 2TB but oh men 1 HDD die and I good go to shop to buy another. Personal 2Hdd in raid0 is fine(games). The best show is CrystalDisc info:
Write and Read speed is 2x fast this is help a lot if you work on files or have absurdal Exel file.
hey i have 2 ssd and 1 hdd which mode is better for me raid or ahci ?
2 ssds - raid 0
wd elements 5400 rpm 32 or 64 mb cache I am using a hdd with 100 mb read speed and although there is no fps problem in most games, stuttering happens. I am considering buying a toshiba mg08 hard disk 7200 rpm 512 mb cache 262 mb read speed, do you think toshiba mg08 hard disk has a stuttering problem in games is it possible
Any drive with more cache will be definitely better
Hwy ram usage increases
I don't understand your results My computer in raid mode with a single hard drive, boot about twice as fast (it might depend on how big a hard drive you have and how much free space.
I would like to know how many drives are in your array?
Two
@@OdinHardwareI just finishing a hack job to add 5 drive bays and a fan into a Dell Optiplex 9020 case (building a fudget sleeper). I want to set an array of 4 HDDs using an add on card from 2008 in raid 0 and use Windows to overlay raid 1 so there is redundancy. I'm going for pure read time as this would be a game's library. Would you recommend a different configuration for my goal and purpose?
My understanding is RAID is more of a back up and data protection versus performance in read/write Am I correct?
Brown Trout thats raid 1... raid 0 is far different. It throws redundancy out the window in order for them to co process.
This is raid 0 in the video, instead of one drive hitting max and throttling, it has a second half that will interrupt and allow it to read ahead
Brown Trout ppl may doubt it... all i see is time tested logic. If you have two drives at the same rpm, preferrably same brand you might as well. Different capacities work too, itll just dumb down the bigger drive. Hope i helped!
Был у меня в системе 500gb
Так же недавно достался бесплатно ещё 500gb
Не хотелось это пространство использовать раздельно. Сделал riad 0
1 терабайта относительно быстрого мне достаточно.
*А потом наебнулся рейд потом переустанавливаеш систему и как только диплом или как его там называется... запишиваешь а потом также ситуация спасибо скоростной рейд ты мне похерил все мои данные и мою жизнь!*
@@archlinux573 да так и будет. Но в чём претензия?
@@bolerman *нет блин стих сочинил😂 а на самом деле даже китайские ссд часто не летят только на всякий случай нужно бэкапить важные данные на внешний или куда подальше А файл подкачки будет в два раза быстрее хотя.. кому нужна скорость две нвме накопителя со скоростью почти как ОЗУ*
software raid or thru raid controller?
Software raid !
can we raid 0 the hdd and also add a intel optane both
I think it's not possible
Something wrong with your setup there dude!
*EDIT* This is answered and resolved below in the comments by VMreviews, it was partitioned. Leaving the comment chain just so people can see that and understand if they have questions as well.
If the HDD alone is 448gb how is 2 of them in raid 1800gb? Did you use different drives for test? That would explain a lot....
EDIT: You missed the point of the question.... You must be using a different type of drive for the single hard drive test which would not give a fair example of the benefits/drawbacks of raid 0. You should be using 1 of the 1tb drives for the left side and 2 of the 1tb drives in RAID 0 for the right side. You are instead comparing some 500gb hdd vs raid 0 of two 1tb hdds. HDDs have different performance so this isn't a fair test. You haven't said even what drive is being used for the 1hdd test, which could be completely different brand, rpm, interface , etc from the 2 1tb hdds. This is shown during the crystaldiskmark tests at the end.
Two 1tb hdd's are used for testing and you get only 1800 when you combine them.
@@OdinHardware I know that... I am asking why you didn't mention the different hard drive used for single hdd speed testing. It's only 448gb so obviously can not be a 1tb drive. Which means the two hdd raid 0 vs 1 hdd test is not really complete here. You aren't comparing the same drives here. Different HDD's have different speeds. You would need to test 1tb drive by itself, then test 2 of them in raid 0. Here you have some other hdd vs two other hdds in raid 0.... How is that a fair comparison?
I used the same model for both tests. hardware details are in the description. Yes, I very well know both drives should be of same model for raid setup and tested with the same drive, which is used for raid 0.
@@OdinHardware CPU - Ryzen 1600X
Motherboard - B350M pro vdh msi
RAM - 16gb x 2 dual channel
solid state drive for testing - Samsung evo850 256 GB
ssd for recording - sandisk x400
HDD for testing - sea gate sky hawk 1 TB 7200 RPM
GPU - geforce gtx 1060 6gb zotac mini
powersupply corsair 650m tx
OS - windows 10
didn't say in the description that you used a smaller version of the same hard drive at all.
Also Seagate doesn't make a SKYHAWK 500gb.
Not worth it for regular drives now ssd is worth it
Hdd in booting windows 10 more faster then hdd raid 0, it mean ssd is worth for fast booting, is'nt it? And hdd raid 0 worth for gaming..cmiiw
SSD is best for gaming, application loading, booting - any day than raid configs.
Эх жаль для скорости сопоставимой с ssd нужно минимум 3штуки
sttuter is complicated
Multiples discs, instead of dual discs could beat the ssd maybe
4 and more disks in raid0 beat sata ssd in sequential read and writes but will never beat nvme/pcie ssds. My 4x 4TB seagate computes give me 788MB/s read speed.
why run operating system in raid kinda pointless
I like you're video. I subscribe
Thanks
He got these backwards lol, one on left should say RAId
CMOS battery voltage
1.3v I think
Lol it does not represent reality at all. My raid zero is much faster than that.
Doesn't seem worth the effort to me. I was considering it,but not now
Not close to ssd but still better than regular hdd
No difference in Windows boot... Wth😠😠😕
The new barracuda models are much faster than the older generation !
dude just get a damn ssd who the hell still uses raid for speed when you have ssds
well technicaly a good raid of hdd could get similar perfomance of a ssd with a lot more of storage for less money, i mean, is not the best solution but a good one
@Mike Studmuffin no need when you can just get an nvme.
very small difference
it is not worth the hasle ....
There must be a bottleneck somewhere, or the setup is wrong
ye a 2 second difference on gta just doesn't make sense, in theory you are doubling the read and write speeds.
This looks like its not setup corectly
These dudes are correct ^
not conclusive experiment
New version will be tested soon, may be in two weeks. Any suggestions ?
@@OdinHardware maybe consider starting the games more than one time. first time opening after install probably isnt representing for long time use
The most people do not understand theory here. For that reason and tests are not correct. Why do you test write only or read only?
RAID 0 with 2 hard is the same as with raid with the 4 hdd. SATA can read or write only. The SAS both simultaneously 2x6Gb/s=12Gb/s
Do you understand my point?
Software RAID 0 is trying to achieve hardware SAS. If mainboard and cpu is high-end by theory may double the speed to 12Gb/s do to one drive is using for read and other for write simultaniusly. This can not be achieve in one only HDD.
Apart of that software raid is better then hardware. Except if you have some data centrum with hundreds hdd.
Gaming tests are not correct. The correct one is write/read at the same time. You will see real difference.
RAID 0 with two hdd is better then one hdd connected directly to mainboard sata.
Sorry to wake you up, you clearly, and all people here who do not know about RAID, www.raid-calculator.com/default.aspx and see for yourself...
nada significativo. risco grande de corromper 100 dos arquivoss, em troca de performance ridicula. Bom video. me tirou a duvida. não fazer.
Thanks for your comment.
Con un disco hdd de 7200 rpm, tengo 160 MBS de escritura y lectura. Configurè un Raid 0 con dos discos hdd de 7200 rpm, y me da una velocidad de 380 MBS en el CrystalDiskMark, y al hacer la prueba de transferir archivos, los transifere a 360 mbs, y despues de transferir unos 4 gb la velocidad baja de a poco, hasta estabilizarse en 120 mbs. la misma prueba con un hdd, me da una velocidad inical de 160 mbs, y tras unos 3 o 4 gb, la velocidad baja y se vuelve inestable, entre 50 mbs y 100 mbs
Raid 0 is still worth
Looks like your RAID 0 is not real looks like you put a 5,400 slow poke disk on the other side ha ha ha! You cannot fool me!
It's easy to say like that ! I used 7200 rpm for both tests !
Very easy to tell because you did not showed your settings!
It's all about trust !
No need to trust because you are not reliable.
Let's end the conversation !
M.2 vs HDD
M.2 raid 0 vs HDD raid 0
Both m2 and ssd are similar in speeds. And I've already done that - ssd vs hdd - ua-cam.com/video/CW-GQJVaZcc/v-deo.html
Will try to do m2 raid 0 vs hdd raid 0
An m2 ssd can be way faster than a sata ssd. Except if they introduce sata4 sometime. But if the M.2 is connected via PCI 3.0 and you have the correct ssd its way faster.
chibiebil
Why don't they make M.2 wider, 2 M.2 put together working automatically in Raid0 with some built in Ram memory to be faster, like 4GB of built in Ram as Cache to speed it up
This is not the right way to benchmark. You're tainting the results with your own mouse clicks. And something's not right to begin with because RAID is so much better.
RAID makes no sense for a desktop PC.
Since the slowest and cheapest SSD is still faster than the best HDD RAID setup.
RAID is only good for a server where you need to store huge loads of data as cheap as possible.
But you can buy 10tb (5*2tb) of hdd for idk 250dollars? and for the same price you get maybe 1tb slow ssd or 480gb fast ssd, so yea, your choice
Raid makes lots of sense- the slowest and cheapest SSD costs 2x more (1TBx2HDD 4,000 pesos vs. 1TB SSD 8,000 pesos).
WTF, never use RAID 0. Never!!!
why in gta v loading time test cspu usage on single hdd id about 20% and on RAID mode 3%
I have no reasons to explain 😗
@@OdinHardware becouse this is bulshiet that you try to sell