Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 11:39:05 +1100
Mark <pleasenospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Mark <pleasenospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Peter <peterfoxghost@xxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>>> Why do you actually need improved read performance ?
>>>>> He wants his computer to boot up faster
>>>> The obvious way to make it boot much faster again is
>>>> to minimise the number of boots and to hibernate instead
>>>> of shutdown when you do need to shut the system down.
>>> My computer hasn't always recovered from hibernation okay, something
>>> to do with the power management. Hence, I am hesitant to use it.
>> Makes more sense to fix that than to try to find
>> a RAID that improves the read performance.
>>> Also, I do like the idea of rebooting regularly to stop the system
>>> becoming bloated with memory resident programs that I don't need.
>> No need with a decent modern OS like XP.
>>>>> and load games faster.
>>>> The obvious way to fix that problem is to keep
>>>> them loaded so they are an instant switch away.
>>> Okay, you obviously don't play games. First, having them stay in the
>>> background quite often reduces the computer to a crawl.
>> Bullshit with a properly configured system.
> Mate, you have no idea.
> The minimum requirements of some current games are 512 megabytes of ram, and
> the preferred configuration is 1 gig!
> How many of these do you think you can have loaded at once before the system
> is reduced to a crawl?
YOU have no idea. It aint the ram use that slows systems
to a crawl, and anyone with a clue can have 4G of ram anyway.
> In fact, due to games directly accessing hardware, there are issues with
> running more than one game simultaneously.
Then keep those in a ram drive, stupid.
> Hence, you need to quit one game before loading up another. Alt-tabbing also
> sometimes doesn't work well due to problems
> with display drivers. Again, if you played games, you would know how
> tempermental the display drivers can be.
You're wildly exaggerating what problems there
are, and they're fixable anyway, most obviously
by loading the games from a ram drive.
>>> Second, even if you are in the game, level loads (and saving and loading
>>> your position) can be very slow.
>> RAID aint gunna fix that.
> Why not?
Essentially because no RAID can make enough
difference to the drive read performance if you
have decent high performance drives in the first place.
> Raid can increase read performance,
Not by enough to do anything about VERY SLOW.
> so why would this not lead to faster load times?
Basically if it is actually VERY SLOW, no RAID will be
able to make enough of a difference to the read speed.
A ram drive will with very badly written games.
>>>>> To some people an extra 10-20 seconds is eternity.
>>>> Improved read performance isnt the only way to fix that. And
>>>> its perfectly possible to do much better than any RAID config
>>>> can do on that. Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
>>> I'd be interested in other techniques. What do you suggest?
>> More physical ram.
> I am planning on having 2 gigs of ram, which is the most I can afford.
Is that with or without RAID and the extra drive ?
> However, how much ram do you have in your system?
Irrelevant, I use my systems quite differently.
> My system is currently using about 200 gigs of storage. It is not possible to
> fill a motherboard with 200 gigs of ram, so obviously the HD still needs to be
> used to load information.
Sure, but if you only do that rarely, the speed of doing that doesnt matter.
And you dont need every bit of what is on the hard drive in a ram drive.
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Mark
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?