Situation:
I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and running
in the background.

My Question:
How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
environment?

Thanks ~~ Gunny

"Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news4147355-8CBE-4796-90BB-E2E27D72952F@xxxxxx

> Situation:
> I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and
> running
> in the background.
>
> My Question:
> How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
> environment?
>
> Thanks ~~ Gunny

Extremely as a RAID 0 is just a mirror set. So the disk you are reading from
is pretty much the same as a single disk and therefore subject to the same
degree of performance degradation due to defragmentation,

--

Mike Brannigan

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:21:02 -0700, Seidell23231
<Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Situation:
> I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and running
> in the background.
>
> My Question:
> How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
> environment?

RAID0 really doesn't affect the issue at all. The importance doesn't
change.

By the way, I used to run RAID0 here, but recently turned it off. I
perceive no decline in performance without it. But RAID0 does
substantially increase the risk of losing everything on your drive.
Without RAID 0, if one drive fails, you lose everything on that one
drive. But with RAID0, if either drive fails, you lose everything on
both drives.

For that reason, I think RAID0 is a bad bargain. You get substantially
increased risk in return for a very slight, or non-existent,
performance increase.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the info. Question - My RAID 0 is running on drives C & D. As
such do I setup Diskeeper for drive C or both C & D?

My Backup Plan consists of a Western Digital My Book Premium 750GB. I have
done a FULL backup and now doing incremental Backups daily.

Anything I'm missing? Suggestions?

Thanks ~~ Gunny

"Mike Brannigan" wrote:

> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news4147355-8CBE-4796-90BB-E2E27D72952F@xxxxxx

> > Situation:
> > I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and
> > running
> > in the background.
> >
> > My Question:
> > How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
> > environment?
> >
> > Thanks ~~ Gunny

>
> Extremely as a RAID 0 is just a mirror set. So the disk you are reading from
> is pretty much the same as a single disk and therefore subject to the same
> degree of performance degradation due to defragmentation,
>
> --
>
> Mike Brannigan
>

Raid 0 is striping, Raid 1 is mirror

"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2C70065E-E581-4016-8B23-997F4F8AFEBC@xxxxxx

> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news4147355-8CBE-4796-90BB-E2E27D72952F@xxxxxx

>> Situation:
>> I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and
>> running
>> in the background.
>>
>> My Question:
>> How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
>> environment?
>>
>> Thanks ~~ Gunny

>
> Extremely as a RAID 0 is just a mirror set. So the disk you are reading
> from is pretty much the same as a single disk and therefore subject to the
> same degree of performance degradation due to defragmentation,
>
> --
>
> Mike Brannigan

Hey Ken,

Thanks for your info. How long were you running a RAID 0 environment and
what experience occured that prompted your switch?

Again Thanks! Gunny



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:21:02 -0700, Seidell23231
> <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote:
>

> > Situation:
> > I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and running
> > in the background.
> >
> > My Question:
> > How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
> > environment?

>
>
> RAID0 really doesn't affect the issue at all. The importance doesn't
> change.
>
> By the way, I used to run RAID0 here, but recently turned it off. I
> perceive no decline in performance without it. But RAID0 does
> substantially increase the risk of losing everything on your drive.
> Without RAID 0, if one drive fails, you lose everything on that one
> drive. But with RAID0, if either drive fails, you lose everything on
> both drives.
>
> For that reason, I think RAID0 is a bad bargain. You get substantially
> increased risk in return for a very slight, or non-existent,
> performance increase.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

Sorry - long day RAID 0 is a stripe set (with no redundancy). I would still
however go with defragmenting.

--

Mike Brannigan
"Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B3A63D4E-34DC-4CFB-A30F-DC9A65C2A733@xxxxxx

> Hey Mike,
>
> Thanks for the info. Question - My RAID 0 is running on drives C & D. As
> such do I setup Diskeeper for drive C or both C & D?
>
> My Backup Plan consists of a Western Digital My Book Premium 750GB. I
> have
> done a FULL backup and now doing incremental Backups daily.
>
> Anything I'm missing? Suggestions?
>
> Thanks ~~ Gunny
>
> "Mike Brannigan" wrote:
>

>> "Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news4147355-8CBE-4796-90BB-E2E27D72952F@xxxxxx

>> > Situation:
>> > I am running a RAID 0 and have Diskeeper Pro Premier 2008 loaded and
>> > running
>> > in the background.
>> >
>> > My Question:
>> > How important is it to Defrag and maintain a Defrag scheme in a RAID 0
>> > environment?
>> >
>> > Thanks ~~ Gunny

>>
>> Extremely as a RAID 0 is just a mirror set. So the disk you are reading
>> from
>> is pretty much the same as a single disk and therefore subject to the
>> same
>> degree of performance degradation due to defragmentation,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mike Brannigan
>>

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v60jt3hmfo1jgvu8e47vfobr452bc6voe6@xxxxxx

>
> For that reason, I think RAID0 is a bad bargain. You get substantially
> increased risk in return for a very slight, or non-existent,
> performance increase.

I totally disagree with there being no performance increase. I have
benchmarked and rated with side-by-side tests, using the same hardware.
HDTach scores on my system were just as they supposed to be. Were you using
a PCI card? Were they IDE drives?

ss.

"Seidell23231" <Seidell23231@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:32B72400-255E-441F-8414-D152F6BFEF9A@xxxxxx

>
> Thanks for your info. How long were you running a RAID 0 environment and
> what experience occured that prompted your switch?
>
> Again Thanks! Gunny

There are speed benefits, particularly if you are using very large files,
with sustained reads/writes. Using RAID-0 in video editing is where you
will really benefit from it. Access times and Burst speeds will not change
much at all, so the benefits on normal use are diminished.

I use it on my CAD workstation, for the OS partition and the Desktop User
Shell folder, and all files are kept off it. I've got twin WD Raptor
10,000rpm disks.

There is a lot of complicated juggling about you need to do when things go
wrong, even if you keep your data elsewhere, and as my setup is complicated
enough as it is, I will not be using RAID-0 again in my next build. The
benefits are not worth the hassle for me, personally.

ss.

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O1K5FCdhIHA.6092@xxxxxx

> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:v60jt3hmfo1jgvu8e47vfobr452bc6voe6@xxxxxx

>>
>> For that reason, I think RAID0 is a bad bargain. You get substantially
>> increased risk in return for a very slight, or non-existent,
>> performance increase.

>
> I totally disagree with there being no performance increase. I have
> benchmarked and rated with side-by-side tests, using the same hardware.
> HDTach scores on my system were just as they supposed to be. Were you
> using a PCI card? Were they IDE drives?
>

You can measure a difference in speed with RAID 0 vs. no RAID 0. If you will
actually perceive a difference depends on how you use the computer and the
RAID controller itself. Most RAID controllers built into the motherboard
don't have a dedicated CPU. They use the main CPU for calculations. This
means that if you are doing something that is CPU intensive that process may
suffer because the RAID driver will have priority for CPU time. When you are
running a benchmark program to test the RAID speed try watching a video at
the same time. Now run a couple of vm's and see what happens. In most cases
as you exercise the RAID array the other programs will suffer. Even though
the drive throughput may be slightly better most people would perceive
computer performance as decreased because the part they see appears to be
performing worse. The other thing to factor in is what most people do with
their computer. In the vast majority of cases the main slowdown from the
hard drive is actually moving the heads to where the data is. Very few
combinations of motherboard RAID controllers and consumer drives would
support real command queuing. This means that the bottleneck will still be
drive head positioning. RAID 0 may have a place but it is not for the casual
user with normal consumer grade computer equipment.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/