Home News Reviews Forums Shop


FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Got a hot deal you want to share? Need one?

FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby MonteLDS on Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:36 pm

yes its 179 with a 80 dollar rebate. 1 per customer of course VERY HOT!

got me one so now i have 1 80 and 3 120's (the 120's will be my raid)
User avatar
MonteLDS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:32 pm
Location: San Fran Bay Area CALIFORNIA

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby cfitz on Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:59 pm

Great deal.

Somewhat off topic, how do you intend to configure those three 120's in your RAID array?

cfitz
cfitz
CD-RW Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:44 am

Postby eliminator on Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:24 pm

Fry's Rocks! 8)
Last edited by eliminator on Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up ATI :-)
User avatar
eliminator
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:15 am
Location: TheLoneStarState

Postby BuddhaTB on Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:34 pm

MonteLDS, Thanks for the heads up.

However, do you really use all those hard drives?
80GB + (120GBx3) = 440GB!
Now that is a lot of space
User avatar
BuddhaTB
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1865
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:50 pm
Location: Southern California (LA & Orange County)

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby MonteLDS on Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:09 pm

cfitz wrote:Great deal.

Somewhat off topic, how do you intend to configure those three 120's in your RAID array?

cfitz


i will only be RAIDing the 2 8MB buffer ones.

I use my space for Video editing (thus why i bought the Sony DRU-500A). but my works pulls me away from doing much video editing.

I need to test out this new DVD burner i got with this clients Sony lap top. that is going be fun!
User avatar
MonteLDS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:32 pm
Location: San Fran Bay Area CALIFORNIA

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby cfitz on Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm

MonteLDS wrote:i will only be RAIDing the 2 8MB buffer ones.

Oh, okay. I was afraid you were thinking of setting up the three of them in a RAID 5 configuration. Will you be doing RAID 0 striping for speed or RAID 1 mirroring for redundancy?

cfitz
cfitz
CD-RW Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:44 am

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby dodecahedron on Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:28 am

cfitz wrote:
MonteLDS wrote:i will only be RAIDing the 2 8MB buffer ones.

Oh, okay. I was afraid you were thinking of setting up the three of them in a RAID 5 configuration. Will you be doing RAID 0 striping for speed or RAID 1 mirroring for redundancy?

cfitz

why afraid?
what's wrong with RAID5?
what exactly is RAID5?
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby cfitz on Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:11 am

dodecahedron wrote:what exactly is RAID5?

RAID 5 stripes data and parity across three or more discs. It allows for failure of a disc without data loss and automatic reconstruction of the failed disc when it is replaced by a new one. It is a good compromise between performance, data integrity, and disc usage.

dodecahedron wrote:why afraid?
what's wrong with RAID5?

There isn't anything inherently "wrong" with RAID 5. However, many people tend to automatically think "RAID" means faster performance relative to a single, plain-old disc. After all, a RAID array includes multiple discs that can be read from and written to in parallel. It must be faster, because the disc activity can be spread across multiple discs simultaneously, right? Wrong. It isn't that simple.

For example, a RAID 5 setup can improve read performance, but write performance is actually slower than for a single plain-old disc. Before a write can be made, depending on stripe sizes, the size of the write and the alignment of the write, the existing data must be read from multiple discs in the array, the parity recalculated, and the data written back to multiple discs.

The write penalty can be reduced by properly tuning the array to the application, configuring the stripe sizes, and adjusting cache settings. But this can be time consuming and difficult to do, and thus often isn't done right. The ops people at my job set up a server for a project of mine, and performance was terrible. My stinky little IDE desktop was running rings around a rack-mount server with SCSI drives. As it turned out, ops had configured a RAID 5 array and not tuned it properly. Once I pointed that out and they did their magic, the server beat my desktop (as it should have). This isn't a snip at ops, since they do a good job, but just points out that RAID 5 is not a slam-dunk.

Anyway, that was the basis for my "fear". I didn't want MonteLDS thinking RAID (in the guise of RAID 5) was the no-brainer answer to the problem of getting high performance for his video storage needs.

cfitz
cfitz
CD-RW Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:44 am

Postby dodecahedron on Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:57 am

thanks for the explanations, cfitz.
i know RAID0 and RAID1. didn't know what RAID5 was.

what's the advantage then of RAID5 over RAID0?
as i understand RAID0 also gives you data integrity without a performance hit.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby cfitz on Sat Mar 22, 2003 12:11 pm

dodecahedron wrote:what's the advantage then of RAID5 over RAID0?
as i understand RAID0 also gives you data integrity without a performance hit.

Oh no, definitely not. RAID 0 offers no data integrity improvement at all. On the contrary, RAID 0 actually increases the chance of data loss when compared to a single drive. RAID 0 is purely for boosting performance. It stripes data across multiple drives in parallel writes and reads to increase throughput, but doesn't include any parity information. Thus, a failure on any one drive in the array will result in loss of all data on the array. :(

I think what you meant was RAID 1. RAID 1 is mirroring - an identical copy of the data is written to two drives in parallel. It provides redundancy with no loss in performance, but requires two bytes of drive capacity for every byte of data you want to store, and thus isn't very efficient. That is where RAID 5 has some advantage. It provides redundancy and failure recovery without requiring a complete duplicate copy of the data, and thus is more efficient in terms of the ratio of drives required to available data storage space.

By the way, RAID 0 isn't actually an official "RAID" designation but the term is commonly used.

cfitz
cfitz
CD-RW Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:44 am

Postby MonteLDS on Sun Mar 23, 2003 12:15 pm

i am runing a RAID 0. I am about to test it right now to see how it is doing for speed
User avatar
MonteLDS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:32 pm
Location: San Fran Bay Area CALIFORNIA

Postby cfitz on Sun Mar 23, 2003 12:39 pm

MonteLDS wrote:i am runing a RAID 0. I am about to test it right now to see how it is doing for speed

Please let us know what kind of performance improvement you see. I am interested in hearing about some real-world experiences of people who implement RAID.

cfitz
cfitz
CD-RW Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:44 am

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby Tolyngee on Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:46 am

In my real-world experiences, RAID-5 has always beat the performance of RAID-1 and RAID-10, and definitely of a single drive.

But not RAID-0. BUT, as Cfitz already stated, RAID-0 isn't RAID anyway.

But the RAID-0/RAID-5 discrepancies were nothing to hoot and holler about either.

I do video editing, and I can tell you now that running RAID-5 is not the bottleneck on my system for the editing function.

Cfitz, as you said, it's not RAID-5 that's slow, but how it is implemented.

And I can guarantee you that my RAID-5 configuration will win in any performance benchmark versus pulling a single drive off of the array and testing it alone. (and, yes, I have done it already so I could determine what configuration I wanted to run...)

All up to what editing you are doing too. (he did mention this is why he bought a DVD burner)

If doing high-quality DVD authoring, any RAID will do. (I've done DVD authoring that would allow me to use floppies without a peformance hit...)


BUT you said:

"Before a write can be made, depending on stripe sizes, the size of the write and the alignment of the write, the existing data must be read from multiple discs in the array, the parity recalculated, and the data written back to multiple discs. "

Huh? if you want to write data to RAID-5, all you have to do is take the data, stripe it, calculate the parity (very simple XOR process), and write it. Where is this phantom read coming from?

But, then, at the end, you mention video "storage". For certain typed of video editing perhaps RAID-5 won't win (not by my experience though), but for video storage, RAID-5 is the clean winner based on the amount of storage you achieve versus data lost to the parity storage.

But, to end it: I was running a RAID-5 array (~1TB+), realized I needed PEFORMANCE (short-term) over storage capacity, and backed everything up and put the array in a RAID-10 ~600GB array.

And now I have a slower array.

I went against my own experience with arrays, cuz RAID-10 has gotta be quicker, and now I am kickin' myself every second until I can be bothered with taking the time to get it back into RAID-5...

In my experience, I must admit, RAID-5 has NEVER LOST in any real world situation I have ever thrown at it...

True, I can throw data at my RAID-0 at (guesses here) 90MB/s, RAID-10 at 85(?)MB/s, and RAID-5 at 70(?)MB/s.

But, if I am not processing any data at a rate of even 70MB/s, what does any of the above matter?

RAID-5 does appear to be more prone to data corruption though (though I believe this is the controller's fault of its implementation of RAID-5...)

But, yeah, any RAID is only as good as its controller.
Tolyngee
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 1:53 pm

Postby Bhairav on Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:33 am

But, yeah, any RAID is only as good as its controller

Ok. But aren't all the popular RAID equipped motherboards just implementing a software controlled RAID controller? I mean, stuff like the Promise 20376 ( or 23076.. can't remember!), and the Highpoint HPT-374 which seem to be really popular with mobo manufacturers, are just software RAID solutions,aren't they?
From what I have heard, heavy duty HARDWARE raid cards (stuff by Adaptec et al) which can implement RAID 5, are really expensive. But hey, they just follow the dictum that you get what you pay for!
Q6600@3.1Ghz | Asus P5Q-E | 4GB DDR2-800 | 8800GT | 4TB HDD | Viewsonic vx2025wm
Xonar DX | Pioneer DVR-212 | Pioneer 111L | Benq 1655
User avatar
Bhairav
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:44 am
Location: Bombay,India

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby cfitz on Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:38 am

Tolyngee wrote:BUT you said:

"Before a write can be made, depending on stripe sizes, the size of the write and the alignment of the write, the existing data must be read from multiple discs in the array, the parity recalculated, and the data written back to multiple discs. "

Huh? if you want to write data to RAID-5, all you have to do is take the data, stripe it, calculate the parity (very simple XOR process), and write it. Where is this phantom read coming from?

This is a fundamental characteristic of RAID-5 that many people are unaware of (hence the common mistaken belief that RAID-5, with its multiple discs, is always faster than simpler disc configurations). It comes into effect when changing a portion of a stripe:

http://www.rare.com/products/raid_whitepaper.html
http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index ... cleID=8255
http://www.ixora.com.au/tips/creation/random_writes.htm
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/rai ... ite-c.html

As I mentioned, it can be mitigated by properly tuning the stripe size and cache usage for one's application. But, it is a fundamental characteristic of RAID-5, and is the reason RAID-5 is not the slam-dunk that many people think it is. RAID-5 can definitely have slower write performance than a single, plain-old-disc, even if the individual RAID-5 discs have better performance characteristics than the single plain-old-disc. I know, I've been there.

Reading, of course, is a different story. RAID-5 has a fundamental theoretical advantage in read performance over a single disc because the reads can be spread out in parallel. Still, even with reading the extent of the advantage will be influenced by the nature of the application and the design and sophistication of the controller.

cfitz
cfitz
CD-RW Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:44 am

Re: FRYS SUPER HOT DEAL 120 gig WD 8MB $99!

Postby MonteLDS on Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:56 am

Tolyngee wrote:
I do video editing, and I can tell you now that running RAID-5 is not the bottleneck on my system for the editing function.

.................

All up to what editing you are doing too. (he did mention this is why he bought a DVD burner)

If doing high-quality DVD authoring, any RAID will do. (I've done DVD authoring that would allow me to use floppies without a peformance hit...)

.............

But, yeah, any RAID is only as good as its controller.


RAID 5 is nice but i can't afford to pick up another 120 WD w/ 8MB cache. I am now broke :) i spent some 800+ dollars on myself recently. But i have like 600+ $ that clients owe me. which reminds me i better make this fast.

RAID 0 is the way i went only for the video editing, and i knew it be fine (thus another reason not go RAID-5). Also, i suspect the next time i build a new box i am going do a SCSI RAID.

I have an onboard RAID controler (Asus board w/ promise controller)
User avatar
MonteLDS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:32 pm
Location: San Fran Bay Area CALIFORNIA


Return to Hot Deals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.