• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Enter The Matrix: Slice out and get the best part from your hard drives

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
how faster does raid 0 in matrix raid load projects in video editing programs (adobe premier, adobe encore and such)?
Assuming I have enough memory, and little or no caching is needed.

I'm asking because the whenever I load a project, it would take quite a few minutes, and the hard drive works real hard. When it's done loading, memory usage go up to 1.8GB, for what I do anyways.

Any video editing program loading benchmark would be nice.
 
nookuwn said:
how faster does raid 0 in matrix raid load projects in video editing programs (adobe premier, adobe encore and such)?
Assuming I have enough memory, and little or no caching is needed.

Compared to what ? For sure if you compare to single drive, you'lll definately feel the difference. :)

nookuwn said:
I'm asking because the whenever I load a project, it would take quite a few minutes, and the hard drive works real hard. When it's done loading, memory usage go up to 1.8GB, for what I do anyways.

What's your rig detail ? Mobo ? CPU ? Harddisk ?

nookuwn said:
Any video editing program loading benchmark would be nice.

Guess we'll have to wait for other OcFer that does heavy video/streamer stuffs to jump in here.
 
the system is

e4300 @333x9
dfi infinity 975x/g
single sata 200gb drive
2gb ram @ 1:1 4-4-4-12

i was referring to editing a 4GB dvd project
 
Although most drive benchmarks will show you "roughly" two folds performance increase in STR, but after knowing that you're only using single drive, imo, you should notice some performance different, at least for me. :)

How much ? At the end, only you alone could tell ! :D
 
Just got round to running these tests,
In posts 531 & 532 are my runs on a AW9D Max ICH7R

These are on my new IP35 Pro ICH9R









All and all the only differences seems to be, that the CPU usage is down and the burst rate is through the roof.
 
Deanzo

Did you just move those 4 raided drives from your old rig AW9D Max ICH7R to IP35 Pro ICH9R ?
If it is, was it straight forward without loosing any data ?

Of course for the Raid 0 OS/Apps/Boot must be re-installed since they're on different mobo.
 
I took it apart and rebuilt the raid on the new motherboard, I did think about trying to just move it, but I wanted to boot my new board with only one drive to start with just in case I had any issues so I could rule out the raid.
 
Great results mate.

I'm planning (later on this week) to migrate across from my ICH8R P5B rig, to the ICH9R P5K rig. I've already set up and tested Vista 32-bit on it without incident (after a brief falter when I tried running the P5K up with a 4400 cpu in it = no go lol) with a single drive. Hopefully my Raid5 D drive will still be there when it all turns on with a fresh Raid0 C drive build otherwise it's a long restore from the external again.
 
bing said:
Although most drive benchmarks will show you "roughly" two folds performance increase in STR, but after knowing that you're only using single drive, imo, you should notice some performance different, at least for me. :)

How much ? At the end, only you alone could tell ! :D

:-/ sound to me like improvement won't be much. O well thanks
 
fritzman said:
Great results mate.

I'm planning (later on this week) to migrate across from my ICH8R P5B rig, to the ICH9R P5K rig. I've already set up and tested Vista 32-bit on it without incident (after a brief falter when I tried running the P5K up with a 4400 cpu in it = no go lol) with a single drive. Hopefully my Raid5 D drive will still be there when it all turns on with a fresh Raid0 C drive build otherwise it's a long restore from the external again.

Just a feeling, ;) that your raid 5 will be fine there in ICH9R ! But its a wise move to backup important stuffs 1st before any hardware changes.

Expecting to hear your experience here ! Good luck ! :)
 
nookuwn said:
:-/ sound to me like improvement won't be much. O well thanks

It is your call, but I swear that I will never go back into single drive anymore, and also believe others raid users feel the same too.

To others, looks like nookuwn needs some more convincing statements here since it seems like I'm not that persuasive ! :)
 
Last edited:
Well, the only time that it doesn't feel like two independent arrays is when you're accessing both arrays simultaneously. Copying large files from your RAID 5 array to the RAID 0, for example, doesn't behave like it would with independent arrays. But that's really the only situation when I notice a problem. I use the RAID 5 for storage, so it doesn't get accessed heavily. All of my programs and the OS are on the RAID 0 array, and everything is very fast.
 
Hey Johan, OT, how's that E2160 there ? At what speed it runs for 24/7 ?
 
bing said:
It is your call, but I swear that I will never go back into single drive anymore, and also believe others raid users feel the same too.

To others, looks like nookuwn needs some more convincing statements here since it seems like I'm not that persuasive ! :)

@ nookuwn,
As bing has said you'll definately feel a difference going from one to two drives in matrix raid, for me it was a large difference :)
Now never say never, but with the drives that you can buy right now, theres no way I'd go back to a single drive.
Now going 2 to 4 is a little harder, for me (other than benchmarks) I didnt see/feel much of a difference at all, but then again I have no plans to go back to two drive ;)
 
Deanzo said:
@ nookuwn,
As bing has said you'll definately feel a difference going from one to two drives in matrix raid, for me it was a large difference :)
Now never say never, but with the drives that you can buy right now, theres no way I'd go back to a single drive.
Now going 2 to 4 is a little harder, for me (other than benchmarks) I didnt see/feel much of a difference at all, but then again I have no plans to go back to two drive ;)

Echo... the 'smoothness' is outstanding.
 
Got a question, can you use couple of raptors for that matrix setup? Because I see everyone in this thread is using seagates and I was wondering if using the raptors would increase the performance even more? Or is it just totally not worth it?

edit: Also one more thing.

Can you have one partition of raid0 for OS and a couple of programs, and another partition of raid0 for the rest? Or do you have to take raid5?
 
Last edited:
dethzero said:
Got a question, can you use couple of raptors for that matrix setup? Because I see everyone in this thread is using seagates and I was wondering if using the raptors would increase the performance even more? Or is it just totally not worth it?

edit: Also one more thing.

Can you have one partition of raid0 for OS and a couple of programs, and another partition of raid0 for the rest? Or do you have to take raid5?

Yep to both.

I have never used Raptors, but logic would say they will be quick.

Simple enough to test out... take some backups and have a go.

Most use Raid 1 or 5 for the balance, simply because of the redundancy.

If you're not concerned about that... set them up however you like. (From memory, you can only have 2 partitions total though.)
 
Finally got them!

Hi all guys,

as i promised some time ago,

JDany3D said:
OK, i'll share my benches as soon as the whole workstation is up and running, it's a promise!

after most nights spent looking for informations and reviews i'm here to share with you the results of my researches.


The Hitachi (HDT725050VLA360) it's a good drive, a little bit better than Samsung HD501J by some points of view but i wasn't completely satisfied about results achieved in multithreading.
They got 23 MB/s with 4 threads accessing them simultaneously.
Not so bad as Perps Seagate 500 GB (7 MB/s) but no so good as Western Digital WD5000YS (40 MB/s).
Looking for Samsung drives i found nothing on multithreaded test so, I decided it would be too risky buy them and take a test on my own.:-/
So, after deleting Seagate, Hitachi and Samsung from the shopping list, the only way to go is to WD.

I was nearly buying WD5000YS RE2 (raid edition) but there was still something not convincing me too much: the platters density, 125 GB x 4 platters, giving them an internal transfer rate of 70 MB/s.
Not too bad but no so good, considering their price and 78 MB/s of hitachi and 86 MB/s of Samsung HD501J.

Spending some other time on Western Digital site, i finally found the drives i want: WD5000ABYS RE
They are still a raid edition and are very similar to WD5000YS RE2.
The main difference i'have found was internal transfer rate: 85 MB/s due to 3 x 166 high density platters!

Got them! :beer:

I paid 612 euros (4 x 153) but i think they are the best choice for raid systems, or a least, the best choice for me! :D
Last but not least, 5 years warranty.

I configured them in that way (matrix raid):
Volume Raid 0 --> 64 GB (16 x 4). Stripe size 128Kb.
Volume Raid 5 --> 1452 GB (484 x (4-1)). Stripe size 128Kb.

And finally some bench for you...;)

Single Hitachi HDS725050KLA360: i bought it to take some test on the system (i'll use it as storage, temporary backup and maybe as temp/scratch disk for Audio/Video onto the first fast zone of the disk. I'll see....)

HDTune_Benchmark_HDS725050KLA360.png

Probably the high density drive HDT725050VLA360 would achieved better results.

RAID 0 (O.Ss, temp and swap)
HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid0Volume.png

HDTachRAID0Volume.PNG


RAID 5 (projects data, video capture, secure working space)
HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid5Volume.png

HDTachRAID5Volume.PNG


Results seem to be very good for raid 0 and good for raid 5.

Raid 0 has a nice STR on the whole 64 Gb volume as it expected to be, with an average access time between 7.9 and 8.2 ms (like a RAPTOR!!!)
The raid 5 worked very well up to 50-60% of the volume, after that, there is a slight steep speed drop.
As soon as i understand how to use IOMeter, I'll do some multithreaded test to see how those drives behave under heavy workload.
I would also take a writing test on raid 5 in order to see CPU load (it could be a critical point without having a dedicated raid card).
Of course, i'll post'em all here for you....
If you have some advice on how to use IOMeter, i'll appreciate it very much.:welcome:
What do you think about my results?
Bad, good?

I'm waiting for your comments.
Have a nice day.
Bye
JDany3D

PS: here below my final rig...
 
Back