How to Over Provision RAID 0?

So I created a RAID 0 Strip Array with a 128K data cluster as my Alienware mothebroard suggested that it is the best size

anyway, I created the RAID array in full size which was like 1.8 TB usable space

I partitioned the fist partition where my OS + Games will be installed to 300 GB

Then I partitioned the D partition to 80% of the total 1.8 TB size of the RAID array

Did I do it right or is there a better way of doing this?

I chose 20% OP as Samsung Magician usually suggests 10% OP for a drive, so combining 2 drives I OPed by 20%

But how in the world does the SSDs know which where is the garbage collection since the unpartitioned space is in a RAID array?

what I did was, create a RAID 0 array with the max size of both my drives, then in Windows, I partitioned C: to 300 GB, and D to 1.34 TB and left 20% unpratitioned space

is this right? or is OP done initially when creating the RAID array that I have to make it 20% less? that's my confusion

please advice

 

To be fair modern drives should use all unused space on the drive so just don't fill it up should work.

 

As far as the twenty percent, that's not how percentages work...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

what do u mean?

care to elaborate?

 

First: there is no 'right or wrong' here, but it is interesting how you interpreted and implemented the 'advice' from Samsung's Magician.

In my experience/workflows (and not just my 'extreme' workflows either); while OP'ing by less than 30% does make some difference to sustained performance, it is not enough to even justify that small capacity given to OP'ing...

You cannot create a RAID0 array less than the full capacity of the smallest drive x the number of drives in the array (afaik). What you can do though is partition that array properly. Is the 128MB strip size the default on your MB? If not, I would re-create the array. Again; ime, 64MB strip size was the best for O/S, Program, temporary data and Scratch disk usage - but that was a few years ago. Still, if the 'default' was 64MB that is what I would use - even if 128MB strip size was 'recommended'.


With the array properly setup, I would then install the O/S (Win8.1x64 Pro Update 1 highly recommended) in Advanced mode and create a C: drive partition of a minimum of 150GB and a D:\ drive partition of the remainder of 70% of the total capacity reported for the array.

Eg.
If the Windows Setup Advanced shows 1887436 MB's total user capacity I would be using a maximum of 0.70 of that capacity or 1321205 MB in total.

With a 150GB C: drive I would allocate 153900 MB's (150GB x 1024 + 300 MB for the additional Windows boot partition).

The remaining 1167305 MB's would be the Data partition (~1,140GB's which I would probably round down to 1,125 GB's) for actual use by me and the O/S.


The ~553 GB's left as 'unallocated' is used by the SSD internally for TRIM and GC routines and only the SSD's controller 'knows' which actual nand chips are used for those purposes at that instant (at one moment a nand chip may be 'unallocated' and the next minute it may contain data. Switching indefinitely as the firmware's algorithms tries to evenly wear all the nand available).

Again, right/wrong is simply which perspective this is viewed from.


To me; RAID0 is 'wrong' as is a Strip size of greater than the default 64MB (that I know of), not to mention OP'ing by less than 30% (or more).


I trust you have a good backup plan in place (or simply don't care about the data and/or the O/S + Program installation and/or you have (immediate) access to a second, fully configured (with your programs) system ready to go - assuming this is a mission critical (to you) computer system).


Hope some of this helps.

Good luck.

 

What would the difference be in making the RAID total size 70% of the drive maximum vs RAID 100% of the maximum and windows volumes 70%?

 

Thank you for your reply I was eagerly awaiting it.

Now a few points:

1) why Windows 8.1 Pro Update instead of Windows 7 Pro? In my benchmarks, Windows 8.1 loses by around 15% in every benchmark, be it 3DMark, Crystal DiskMark, or AS SSD. I don't get your point? I know you say Windows 7 is yestertech and that Windows 8.1 is more optimized for new hardware like SSDs, so why is it then that on Windows 7 I get better benchmarks?

2) so what I did is right I guess, which is to create a RAID 0 array of the total size, then only partition C: + D: accordingly leaving an empty unallocated space at the end, I can simply extend that unpartitioned space now to give it more room it should work right?

3) you mention the recommended is 64 K for a balanced usage environment, that's what I read when I did some research, but how come the engineers of DELL put in the BIOS options a tip that for RAID 0 128K is recommended and for RAID 1 it is 64K and so forth? I thought they knew best

4) most importantly, my system doesn't feel one bit faster than when it was in AHCI mode with no RAID array except when benchmarking or when I copy a large video file of 3GB+ let's say, otherwise, RAID VS AHCI (non RAID) is the same, strange...I expected my system to be snappier

 

1) Windows 8.1 x64 Pro Update 1 is like a new O/S (even from Win8 and Win8.1). It behaves differently (better) and is more usable at the same time. I'm not saying to update to 8.1 (from Win8 or (shudder) Win7) - I'm suggesting a clean Windows 8.1 Update 1 install.

As for the BM comments. If you want to build a system that can post 'scores' - yeah Win7 will give you that. If, on the other hand, you want a system that is tangibly faster - Win8.1 is the only choice right now.

I can't/won't argue with 'scores' in BM's. All I can suggest is that almost no 'scores' indicate how a system will feel in real world usage and in real world workflows. Even just navigating the O/S a high 'score' does not mean a better experience. Even if it did, that doesn't mean a 'real' workflow would be faster too.

2) You are correct. Technically though, you can't 'extend' an 'unallocated' capacity - you have to shrink an existing partition to make the 'unallocated' capacity larger.

3) So, my decades old 'info' is still correct for RAID0... hehe.. Listening to Dell engineers' suggestions is a little like listening to a 3 year old on how to make a bicycle go faster (ride your bike on ice... lol...) - it may work, but you lose control (and possible compatibility depending on your installed programs - and worse; the O/S itself).

4) Agreed. This is the most important aspect when tuning for performance. If it's not faster (don't do it, period).



There are two aspects to performance that I have become finely tuned to over the years: responsiveness and actual work throughput/productivity.

Responsiveness has reached it's peak (for me) right now with a 1TB EVO (650GB used) with 150GB used for the C: drive partition and having 100GB free space on C: .

Work throughput or what I like to call productivity is handled by the SanDisk Extreme II 480 GB models. These don't feel as 'fast' to me as the 1TB EVO - but they handle a real workload over a sustained time period (sometimes days) without a sweat. Sure they dip, slowdown and do other consumer level antics - but overall, their performance is the best I've experienced so far. Far, far above the 1TB EVO for sustained workloads (even just copying (huge) files back and forth with the EVO is a lesson in humility).


A snappy system is enjoyable - that is why I have a few 1TB EVO's in my 'low expectations' systems (Win8.1x64 Pro, i7 QC, 16GB RAM) for the less strenuous 'productivity' side of my workflows (invoicing/billing, emails, browsing/reading(PDF's), etc.). But it in no way indicates what potential the system is capable of at it's peak as trying to use these systems for my actual workloads shows (crawl, crawl crawl...).

A productivity based system is a more balanced system overall - and especially when you have just a single system available (I would guess this is what you have currently), this would normally be the preferred choice.

But I would not recommend such a system setup (RAID0...) when the use case may be solely for BM 'scores' and no real need of the inherent benefits (sequential reads/writes) it offers. And especially when the risks are assumed without any increase in day to day snappiness of the system in question.


The underlying tech between RAID and AHCI is the same - some drives respond as expected when in RAID0 and some don't. I'm assuming you're running 1TB EVO's... when I had these drives running (for a week) with RAPID enabled, I noticed a (relatively, to me) huge increase in responsiveness when I re-installed them with RAPID disabled (and Magician not even installed).

No matter what the numbers/scores say - 'you' are the only benchmark that counts. If it doesn't feel faster, it's not.


When evaluating whether setup 'A' or setup 'B' is better or worse - I try to use the tested system for at least a week. Overall is what is king; specifics, I couldn't care less about.

This is why when I was over the disappointment (and shock) of how bad the EVO worked for real work (sustained, RAW image editing workflows), I still found that the snappiness it has is still worth something to me in lessor workflows.

Samsung has never been a performance king - but it is at a good enough state (and at a good enough price) to be considered for certain uses.

I guess RAID0 is not one of them (at least not with Win7...).

 

Ok bro, I will break my RAID in this case and go with your advice since you are my role model and noone on the entire internet has your knowledge when it comes to SSDs and different types of workflows.

I will also re-install Windows 8.1 Pro with WMC

To me, RAPID did not feel more responsive, it was only a lie to benchmark programs to make them benchmark your RAM and give you a fake sense of double the scores. in real world usage, copying large files and such, it yielded 0 benefit.

Come to think of it, it is a very limited method of cache, only 1 GB! what a stupid decision to only allow 1 GB when most performance enthusiasts have16GB + RAM

I hav 32 GB of RAM. So I bought Primocache which allows me to use as much RAM as I want for caching and let me tell you this, that DOES give you a big snapiness boost. Try it, the dmeo is free for 90 days with no nags.

time to format, the SAMSUNG SSDs were not meant for RAIDing

 

One last thing Mr. tilleroftheearth

Since you own a 1 TB 840 EVO like me, what did you find is best for this drive? the default MSAHCI driver or the IRST driver? When not using any kind of RAID offcourse, just simple AHCI mode

 

The latest Intel RST driver has always given me the most consistent (snappy/productive) results:

Currently: STOR_Win7_8_8.1_12.9.0.1001_f6flpy-x64.zip


See:
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/De...ion=Windows 8.1, 64-bit*&DownloadType=Drivers


Thanks for the tip on Primocache, but I've sworn off on any third party caching software for a long time now. Especially when the workflows I have with can still be choked with even 64GB of RAM.

Taking anything away from a capable O/S is shooting yourself in the foot (if you push the hardware and the O/S like I do).

If your workflow benefits with this type of software (just as, or more 'dangerous' than RAID0, ime) just make sure you have a solid backup plan and that you use it continuously.

Thanks for the kind words (but 'Mr.'... hmmm... ), but I'm more than happy to have helped.

 

MaXimus... that was quick. Didn't think you'd make another account and come back that soon.

Seek help. Think about it.


@Tiller o' the earf: You're arguing with a troll who's been banned many umpteen times under various account names.