Author Topic: Windows Raid 10  (Read 154 times)

Offline JoonasTo

  • Member
  • Posts: 7148
  • Upholding traditional values
Windows Raid 10
« on: January 28, 2017, 12:00:48 pm »
Has anyone tried it?
Create two mirrors, then stripe those mirrors. Should work. Technically.
Does it though? Actually work as a raid 10 would? This is what I'm interested in.
Also how's the performance if you've tried it, compared to linux? Hardware?

Hardware shouldn't matter too much since it's 10 not parity.
4 3TB 10 vs 3 3TB 5+card, obviously 5+card will be way faster but price efficiency is much far better with 10 without card. Especially if I set up linux server downstairs(though in that case Z2 would be better, probably) but depending on what I can get with windows 10 I might not bother with that at all.

Because we can!

Online kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9283
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Windows Raid 10
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2017, 02:02:08 pm »
software raid on windows is heavily dependent on the CPU's capacity, also whether its using the native SATA controllers, 3rd party controllers would add another layer of overhead.
though from this perspective, since theres a software layer that goes between the CPU and SATA controller, the overall performance is a bit less than a decent hardware raid.

it ultimately depends on the raid card, but normally the performance of 4x3TB R10 is better than 3x3TB R5, even if R5 is hardware.
since R10 = read*(N), write*(N/2) while R5 = read*(N), write*(N-1), these are when they're under optimum configuration.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 02:39:24 pm by kitamesume »

Offline JoonasTo

  • Member
  • Posts: 7148
  • Upholding traditional values
Re: Windows Raid 10
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2017, 03:52:58 pm »
Yes but at least before, windows raid was kinda shit so you wouldn't get anywhere the real world performance you should.
Plus I'm not sure if windows will actually treat such wannabe raid 10 properly.

Because we can!

Online kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9283
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Windows Raid 10
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2017, 07:27:22 pm »
windows raid is so-so, performance wise its not as good as ZFS.
although when compared to 3HDD R5, a windows 4HDD R10 would be a bit faster in read but slower write.

Offline JoonasTo

  • Member
  • Posts: 7148
  • Upholding traditional values
Re: Windows Raid 10
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2017, 09:19:31 pm »
It's not too bad. The only thing where it really sucks is small random writes. The other picture is my WD Black from 2007. Both run idle and from the same controller.

Toshiba DT01ACA300 x4 in Raid 10(Windows mirrored storage spaces striped in disk management)


WD5001AALS-00LB32



As we can see, the random write rate is really appalling but that might be due to the cheap drives more so than the raid itself(although windows doesn't present options so I'm expecting it to use far too large stripe lengths.) In practice it's really easy to overload the raid by downloading multiple torrents at the same time. It gets overloaded way faster than the WD black does in that situation, as such I'm using the WD Black as intermediary storage and the Raid is upload/final storage.

Excellent sequential read though, just a hint slower than my Crucial M550(though we can argue that it might be hitting the sata limit.)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 09:26:14 pm by JoonasTo »

Because we can!

Online kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9283
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Windows Raid 10
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2017, 11:03:47 pm »
SATA controller on-die of chipset is limited by the DMI bandwidth, supposedly the limit is around ~700MB/s.

but this has an issue with regards to shared bandwidth between the NIC and USBs.
in practice, overloading the on-die SATA controller can negatively affect the other devices.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 11:27:32 pm by kitamesume »